Fredrick Bernanke's Blog

Mr. President-elect: We Want People With "No experience whatsoever in government."

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:31:19 EST

From an AP article published today:

"[Obama] defended his selection of former Clinton officials to help run his administration.

"The American people would be troubled if I selected a treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever," Obama said. "What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking," he said. "But understand where the vision for change comes from. First and foremost, it comes from me. That's my job." [emphasis added.]

This quote makes two important points:

1. The President-elect understands that he has abandoned the Change mantra by his appointments, and

2. He has put the full weight of Change on his own shoulders.

From a supporter: As brilliant as you are; as tough as you may be; immersing yourself in this sea of entrenched, Establishment, old school advisers and officials will drown you. You are swimming with the (much more experienced) sharks who themselves are the root cause of the problem.

Designating Paul Volcker as the commander of your "outsider" Economic Team is the functional equivalent of designating Randy "Duke" Cunningham as the leader of your "outside" Ethics in Government Team.

Sir, the people want precisely those with "no experience whatsoever in government" to be advising you. Why? (A rhetorical question, sir.)

Velocity vs. Direction: The Obama Economic Team

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:31:14 EST

"Hitting the Ground Running"

1. Obama's choice of his Economic (Domestic Policy) Team, as well as his Foreign Policy Team, sends one message; and that message is directed to what used to be called The Establishment. The message is: "You have nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency."

2. The refrain we hear regarding the Economy is that Obama wants to "hit the ground running." One might argue, given the last several months of Paulson & Bernanke "running" around like chickens without heads squandering public monies on policies notable only for their inefficacy, that the DIRECTION of the actions should be the paramount consideration rather than their VELOCITY.

3. The Obama Economic Team comprises the very architects responsible for the catastrophe, specifically including Robert Rubin, the "Senior Adviser" to the Citigroup Board's Executive Committee. Mr. Geithner is the third Musketeer, Bernanke and Paulson being the other two, of the un-elected triumvirate that designed the already discredited, abandoned $700 billion TARP. Mr. Summers, as well, is hardly the poster boy for Change.

The Economic Team, of course, "is what it is;" more important, "it is what it was."

The Mythologizing of the Secretary of the Treasury

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:01:41 EDT

1. There is no shortage of curiosities in the current Capital Holocaust.

2. But the one that most strikes me is the (what I judge to be conscious) effort to portray the Secretary of the Treasury as the key, if not sole, official of the Executive Branch, who will be granted extraordinary new powers. The current Secretary is Henry Paulson, and he certainly has been given the role of public front man for the Administration during this crisis.

3. Indeed, the legislation thus far passed, ineffectual though it has been, has specifically identified the Secretary of the Treasury as the beneficiary of the new and far-ranging powers contained therein.

4. Also conspicuous is the relative tangentiality of the current President of the United States to the public debate regarding the economic issues facing the Nation. This in stark contrast to his role in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

5. The Secretary of the Treasury is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the President of the United States. Any and all powers and authorities of the Secretary vest in Article II of the Constitution, the Article establishing the office and powers of the President of the United States.

6. Yet the media, mainstream and otherwise, insists on reporting the latest events in terms of the powers being granted, by the Legislative Branch, as powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, a position whose power stems from and only from the powers of the President of the United States.

7. Is this merely a semantic quibble? I don't think so.

8. We are witnessing an abdication and creation of power by the Legislative to the Executive Branch of government, with no debate or discussion, only with the obfuscation of substituting the position of "Secretary of the Treasury" for "President of the United States" in the new legislation.

9. In other words, we are witnessing an exponential, stealth explosion in the power of the President, irrespective of party or person. This is being perpetrated by members of both parties in the Legislative Branch in concert with the current regime in control of the Executive Branch. This is as non-partisan an issue as can be constructed.

10. The grotesque dishonesty and blatant contempt for the citizenry inherent in these actions of both political parties and 2 of the 3 Branches of our federal government will been seen as a quantum leap in the de-legitimazation in the eyes of the citizenry of our government.

[The paragraphs in this article are numbered for ease of reference only.]

Our Man Has Won; Now What? Suggestions Welcome

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:48:43 EDT

[Originally posted on my blog, http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com ]

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Capitalism's Call to 911

The Capitalist System
Can It Be Fixed Without Being Diagnosed?
Can It Be Fixed Without Being Diagnosed?

A Different Look at the Dow

All the headlines will read that the Dow was down 679 points in today's trading. Those headlines will be accurate because tradition (and logic and ease of comparison factors) dictates that one measures the daily change in the Dow (and all other indexes and individual stocks and commodities) by comparing the current day's closing price to the previous day's closing price.

The Dow closed yesterday at 9258; it closed today at 8579; 9258 - 8579= (679).That represents a 7.33% loss for the day.

But the Dow trades from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM (all times Eastern) everyday, including today. Most professional traders and virtually all financial journalists essentially disregard the numbers generated during the trading day, as mentioned above.

But let's take a peek at the numbers during the day. The pros call that action intra-day trading.

At approximately 9:45 AM, the Dow stood at 9448, the high for the day. From there it went on to close at 8579. That represents a drop of 869 points. Another way of looking at it is that, from its high for the day (9448,) the Dow lost 9.10% of its value.

Using either the traditional yardstick, which showed the Dow down 7.33%, or the non-traditional one that produces an intra-day loss of 9.10%, these are remarkable numbers that are usually associated only with very speculative, individual stocks. Stocks like those are known for their volatility, best defined as the propensity of their price to move often and widely.[Note: The Dow is down 40% from its all-time high.]

_______________________________________________________________

So, what's the point?

The point, I think, is that this behavior in the market(s)--after all the efforts and trillions of public dollars expended by our and other governments--is a strong argument that nobody--nobody!--knows what the problem(s) is and, ipso facto, cannot know what the solution is.

Analogy: Obviously sick patient brought to hospital with multiple symptoms. Situation obviously serious, maybe grave. Diagnoses vary from specialist to specialist, no one diagnosis can be agreed upon.

Hospital reacts by administering huge doses of antibiotics, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants, pain killers, virtually any drug that's in the cabinet; cardiac surgeons perform triple bypass; kidney specialist hooks patient up to dialysis machine and so on. Fortunately, that's not how the medical community would react.

If the proposition that no one has accurately diagnosed the illness is true, this is not the time for more shotgun squandering of monumental sums of public funds on well-intentioned, but thus far ineffective solutions to an inscrutable problem.

Question: Which is worse, (a) no immediate new action by the US Government, (b) immediate new actions along the lines of the old ones, or (c) an attempt at "buying time?" Option (c) would be something like the declaration, in concert with other nations, of a "Bank Holiday," starting tomorrow and running through next Monday, removing the second-to-second pressures on policy-makers associated with gyrating trading markets.

_________________________________________________________

From: History.com

March 5, 1933
Roosevelt declares bank holiday

When Franklin Roosevelt started his first term in the White House in 1933, he inherited a nation in the depths of the Depression. A record 13 million Americans were unemployed and businesses were drowning in red ink. Perhaps even more pressing was the head-spinning string of bank failures which had triggered a frantic run on the nation's savings vaults. The wave of withdrawals by panic-stricken depositors further dried up banks' already-depleted supply of liquid assets and pushed the nation's banking system to the brink of disaster. On March 5--the day after being sworn into office--Roosevelt stepped into the breach and declared a "bank holiday," which, for four days forced the closure of the nation's banks and halted all financial transactions. The "holiday" not only helped stem the frantic run on banks, but gave Roosevelt time to push the Emergency Banking Act through the legislative chain. Passed by Congress on March 9, the act handed the president a far-reaching grip over bank dealings and "foreign transactions." The legislation also paved the path for solvent banks to resume business as early as March 10. Three short days later nearly

Debate II: At Least Neither One is a Palin

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:57:53 EDT

1. One of the few recent public appearances where McCain came across as a
reasonable, not-out-of-control, contender for the Presidency.

2. Obama was Obama, though he is displaying an increasing competence in
extemporaneous formats, something lacking earlier in the campaign.

3. Although he did not kiss him on the lips, neither did McCain evince
personal disdain for Obama, he did in Debate I, to his disadvantage.

4. Obama abandoned the "John" references, referring to his opponent as
Sen. McCain; McCain maintained his Debate "Sen. Obama", with one
unfortunate slip as "that one."

5. As in Debate I, the differences between the two are frequently
tactical, not strategic---we're not looking at polar opposites here.

6. The most significant distinction between the Senators is their tax policies. McCain favors the continuation of the Bush cuts which target the very wealthly, and throws in an additional $100 Billion of cuts for them an corporations. Obama proposes tax cuts for individuals and smalll businesses with incomes of $200,000 and lower, and would not extend the Bush cuts, meaning he would raise taxes on those who benefited from the Bush cuts and not add any additonal cuts for those income groups.

7. Conclusions: (a) McCain did not emotionally self-destruct and, in
fact, displayed a new-found calmness in his demeanor; he showed the
public that his knowledge of issues far surpasses his running mate's,
and he is not, like she, a mere television personality (b) Obama
performed like a well-schooled professional tennis player---Roger
Federer comes to mind: smooth, powerful, got all the shots but no
obvious weaknesses.

If McCain needed a knock-out, he didn't get it; if Obama needed a
wild-eyed erratic McCain to end the race, he didn't get it either.

8. The contest returns to the status quo ante, which means McCain's chances for victory remain slim.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot,com

The Government of the United States of America...

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:03:14 EDT

..., as powerful as is it, can crumble like a stale cookie if it loses its Legitimacy in the minds of the People.

The actions of our (well-intentioned) Leaders in the face of this Economic Holocaust have thus far proven to be inadequate.

The solutions put forth by Leadership are obviously skewed to directly benefit the few, at the expense of the many.

As the crisis grows, so too does the threat to the Nation, the greatest threat to its survival since the Civil War.

We have witnessed some of our unelected, appointed leaders taking unilateral actions involving the expenditure or commitment of 100s of billions of taxpayers funds that have already been proven to be ineffectual.

We have endured our elected leaders passing legislation blatantly in opposition to the will of the People, legislation that benefits a select few at the expense of the many, and whose efficacy is dubious.

We watch in helpless awe as the leadership squanders their legitimacy as they display their subservience to special interests, at the expense of the People.

Below are some words of the Civil War President, from his Gettysburg Address:

" Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a
new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal.

"It is ... for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us...--- that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Is our government a government "of the people, bythe people, for the people" any longer? Or is it now a government of, by and for Goldman Sachs?

The events of the days ahead will answer that question.

All I can say is that it is now a question.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

The Bailout: Greatest Threat to the Nation Since the Civil War

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:00:04 EDT

1. I have published 119 posts on this blog, none of which has ever been deleted or censored by the Obama campaign, despite the fact that I have been "reported" to the authorities numerous times. One of those blogs was a Thank You to this site, which is still in effect.

2. Since there is a written, dated record extant of my opinions, both here and on my own personal blog, statements made in the following post regarding past comments of mine are verifiable.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Since at least March of this year, I have equated and compared the on-going financial crisis we are experiencing to the Great Depression of the 1930s, using such terms as "The Postmodern Great Depression" and "Capitalism Gets Re-Capitalized," among others.

The focus of my comments has been economic.

A couple of days ago, a friend with whom I had not spoken with for awhile asked me, during a telephone conversation, my opinion on the Bailout and the general politico-economic events appurtenant to it.

I found myself responding thus: "This is the most serious threat to the United States of America since the Civil War." Not only had I never said that before, I had never thought that before.

My usually composed and well spoken friend responded, "Holy shit!"

And when I myself realized what I had said, my internal response was the same.

"We've transcended the threat of a mere Depression," I said, "and moved into that rarefied realm where we must be concerned with the very existence of the Nation as we've known it since the Founding."

He was silent.

Thinking aloud, I blurted out, "We are witnessing the destruction of representative democracy, a bloodless coup, the only opposition to which is coming from the 'lunatic fringe,' on both poles of the political spectrum, a coalition of the absurd and the powerless."

We chatted for a brief time, agreed that we were both astonished that Hedge Fund Managers could exert more influence on our elected representatives--and do so with such blatancy, such arrogance--than the outcry of perhaps 80% of the citizens of the Nation who opposed the Bailout, even in the face of the relentless and thoroughly ramified propaganda campaign mustered by the Elites, endorsed by the mainstream of both parties, and propagated by the most "noble" of media outlets.

But the fact is the Hedge Fund Managers triumphed. And they know it. And when they win, they don't pick up their winnings and move along---they Double Down.

The country's Changed over the last two weeks; there can be no argument with that proposition.

Obama ran/runs on Change.

And he's going to be the next President of the United States:

The first President of the United States of a New America, for better or worse.

Good Luck, sir.

Bailout Bill Passes: Dow Drops 470 Points!

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:07:12 EDT

The boys have broken the dike...and they know it.

The Goldman Sachs Bailout Plan passes Congress, just what the "markets" have been waiting for, so the extortion talking points went.

The Bailout passed; the Prez promptly signed it into law.

And the relieved markets rocketed up to the moon---oh wait!

Seems our bellwether Dow Industrial Index, which had been up 313 points before the bill passed, reversed course upon its passage and wound finished the day DOWN 157 points, a loss of 470 points subsequent to the capitulation. Ain't them markets something?

This reaction signals Round 2. Round 1 was the extortion round. Round 2 will be the thievery round.

Expect all sorts of comments from the Elites--led by sundry mouthpieces of the investment industry--alluding to the fact the the Bailout, while "a step in the right direction" is not a cure-all for what ails the economy. The mantra: MORE, MORE MORE.

These guys are so smart that they've probably calculated what each 100 point drop in the Dow is worth in new taxpayer funds. They sense the floodgates have been breached; like in New Orleans, the dikes couldn't hold...and now the sky's the limit.

There was some fear a few weeks ago when the new Super Collider was cranked up in Switzerland that there was a possibilty of creating man-made Black Holes during the high speed collision of protons, Black Holes that possibly could consumes the Earth itself.

That scenario pales in comparison to what the alliance of Bankers, Wall Street Traders, Insurance Titans and Hedge Fund Managers have succeeded in creating: A Financial Black Hole with enough gravity to suck in, never to escape, a significant percentage of the nation's GDP, all in the name of protecting the Average Joe's and Jane's 401k plans and paychecks.

Over the weekend, the victors will be deploying their finest, most erudite troops/spokespeople to prepare the groundwork for additional extortions of taxpayer money. The reasoning underlying the requests will be as plausible, elegant and recondite as those used in Round 1 of this match.

Only this time, the boys have an additional $700 Billion of what used to be taxpayer funds on-the-come to finance an even more comprehensive propaganda assault.

The Black Hole we've created has infinite depth, prodigious gravity and an insatiable appetite.

Market Crashes 778 Points, Delay That: Market Explodes Uo 485 Points!

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:26:43 EDT

Bailout Debate: Relying on the Experts

If ever a clearer reason existed that the Public and its elected representatives should not be stampeded into action by the machinations of the Stock Market((s), yesterday's and today's trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) could not be a clearer indication of the irrationality that always underlies these speculative markets.

Yesterday was the 778 point bloodbath in the Dow (and the broader market as well) that the Elites have been indicating would be the result of failing to pass the Goldman Sachs Bailout Plan. It was the largest point decline in the Dow's long history, ostensibly "wiping out" $1.2 trillion of on-paper wealth.

That was yesterday. Today, with no passage on the Plan, that same market recouped 485 of those lost points, the second largest point GAIN in the history of the Dow, earning back 64% of the alleged $1.2 trillion loss, or a mere $768 billion, coincidentally, the approximate cost of the Goldman Sachs "rescue" plan.

Was that plan voted on and passed today? Nope. But did the usual (suspect) analysts explain this rally as renewed hope the plan would pass? Yep. Do these analysts have any better idea than you or I why the market dropped yesterday and exploded up today? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

These oracles, like their religion counterparts, can rationalize PAST action in words so plausible that they almost must be true. And since there are essentially no competing views to theirs that garner media attention, both the Public and their Reps are sucked into the rational verbiage these pros have been dishing out since time immemorial.

Remember the Oil Bubble? Explanations, by these same analysts, ranged from hurricanes, to planned terrorist attacks, to the sudden discovery that China and India existed as the justificatory discourse in the speculative orgy of Hedge Funds and others to capitalize in newly-unregulated oil futures contracts.

The bubble popped at a little over $147/barrel, dropped like a lead balloon nearly 40%. The analysts duly noted the slowdown in in the world economy---as if the world economy or China's or India's economy has slowed down 40% in a couple of months!

The gyrations of speculative markets--be they stocks or oil--must be bracketed when decisions regarding the looting of the Treasury for private interests is concerned.

The People have the common sense to do that; it's their elected Reps, of both parties, that will find it harder to resist the big guns of speculative Wall Street.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Citibank & Goldman Sachs & Obama & "Change"

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:38:45 EDT

Primus inter pares.

Know what that means? It's Latin for "First Among Equals."

So why do I lead this post with that Latin phrase?

Because primus inter pares of Obama's economic advisers during this crisis has been Robert Rubin.

Robert Rubin is currently employed by Citigroup, one of only three remaining mega-banks, the other two being JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, whose current employer stands to be one of the major beneficiaries of the Goldman Sachs Bailout Plan. And, most important, Mr. Rubin is, like current Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Mr. Rubin also served as Secretary of the Treasury for Bill Clinton.)

If Candidate Obama were serious about "Change," he would not have Robert Rubin whispering the self-serving ideas of Goldman Sachs into his ear. For all intents and purposes, Rubin=Paulson.

Neither of these guys are crooks. Both of these guys are brilliant. But as a masonry journeyman friend said to me recently, "If you have a carpenter build the whole project, everything's going to be built with a hammer."

That's the problem with having two carpenters, honest and talented ones for sure, advising both the President and the President-in-Waiting. (McCain is a non-factor in this crisis, demonstrably in way over his head, and incapable intellectually of contributing to the debate.)

Obama, as the candidate of Change, must liberate himself from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and the entire ensemble of Establishmentarians now advising him. Otherwise, his Presidency will be held hostage by them.

Similarly, Obama's Foreign Policy, though more thoughtful and realistic than McCain's, also seems to be guided by the establishmentarian Council on Foreign Relations, hardly an exemplar of Change.

I know I am asking for too much. To distance oneself from the mainstream to this magnitude would ensure defeat. But the fact that Obama cannot do so makes me wonder how much Change we are likely to see during his tenure as president.

The GOLDMAN SACHS BAILOUT PLAN DEFEAT: A (Rare) Victory For Democracy

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:39:44 EDT

Obama website readers all know we live in a representative democracy wherein the elected representatives of the people are not compelled to cast votes congruent with the views of their constituents.

The assumption by the Ruling Class--usually called the Elites-- was that the Goldman Sachs Bailout Plan was going to be just another example of representative government: the elected representatives voting in opposition to the views of the vast majority of their constituents, namely, for approval of Goldman's self-bailout plan.

I am not a right wing conservative by any definition of the term, and am aware that the defeat of the measure was spear-headed by rightest Republicans.

But if the reports are true that public input to Congressional and Senatorial offices was running something like 100-1 against Goldman Sachs' Plan, and if one has even the slightest vestige of confidence in the concept of actual democracy, and the possibility implicit therein that there is a certain collective wisdom that resides in the unwashed masses, then today's vote should be cause for jubilation. Why?

Because for once there appears to be near unanimity on the part of the People. No, they can't explain a Credit Default Swap or a Collateralized Bond Obligation or perhaps even the generic term Derivative, but they can smell a rat, or in this case, a whole bunch of rats.

One fact cannot be argued: The Ruling Class got the country into this mess, be they Democrats, Republicans, Wall Street traders, bankers, Hedge Fund managers, Senators or Presidents. The public is saying to them, "We don't trust you to get us out of this mess."

That's my view as well.

Paulson-Bernanke have an examinable track record in place: They've poured, essentially unilaterally, $600 billion or so into the Bear Stearns "solution," the Fannie, Freddie "solution," and the AIG "solution" (as well as countless 100s of billions directly into the banking system through the Fed.) Those actions proved not to be "solutions." The current Plan is more of the same, with a minor switch in targeting.

The problem, like a Black Hole, has enough gravity to suck a virtually infinite amount of capital into its abyss, never to escape, never enough to sate the monster. The people can sense this; the Ruling Class cannot.

Now that the Plan has been defeated, what's next for government to do?

That will be by next post.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

The Trillion Dollar Farce: Main Beneficiaries of Bailout To be Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:29:38 EDT

Paulson Plan May Benefit Mostly Goldman, Morgan, Analyst Says

By Jody Shenn

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley may be among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan to buy assets from financial companies while many banks see limited aid, according to Bank of America Corp.

``Its benefits, in its current form, will be largely limited to investment banks and other banks that have aggressively written down the value of their holdings and have already recognized the attendant capital impairment,'' Bank of America debt analyst Jeffrey Rosenberg wrote in a report today, without identifying particular investment banks.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

If the above, from Bloomberg, is accurate, Henry Paulson should recuse himself from the design and management of any federal bailout program forthwith. Before his appointment as Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sachs. Enough said.

________________________________________________________________________________________

The article below from the Associated Press should serve as a reminder of the Paulson approach to solving this mess.

AssociatedPress August 8, 2008

(AP) The Treasury Department said Tuesday it had hired investment firm Morgan Stanley to help the government assess the risks facing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For $95,000 to cover the company's expenses, Morgan Stanley will assess the state of the mortgage market and give the government a financial profile of the two firms. The two mortgage firms received a promise of support from the federal government as part of a sweeping housing rescue bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last week.

Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said the contract would help ensure the Treasury Department had good advice to decide how to support the two mortgage firms, which together own or guarantee half of all U.S. mortgages.

In the Dead of Night

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:22:30 EDT

The Federal Reserve announced at 9:30 PM on Sunday that--presto!--Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are now officially "banks," in the traditional sense of the word.

What the hell is going on here?

Both these alleged "fierce "competitors petition the Fed for the same action at the same time and both get approved at the same time....There's no doubt that they, Morgan and Goldman, are just ensuring that they're going to feed at the Public trough without any nasty semantic impediments getting in their way.

The Paulson/Bush 'Rescue' Plan: Unmitigated Joy on World Stock Markets...Why?

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:05:06 EDT

Cui bono?

That's Latin for "who benefits" and is generally a term one encounters in legal proceedings; as in "who benefits from the commission of such and such crime?" It's one way of pinpointing possible suspects.

It's also the primary question that needs to be addressed regarding the Bush Administration instant-Plan for National Economic Survival hastily put forward by King Henry of the Treasury Department Friday evening, after having leaked its essential nature a day earlier.

Let's try a little detective work here.

Who benefits? One might begin the investigation at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and find corroborating evidence at Stock Exchanges around the world.

On Friday, the world's Stock exchanges enjoyed, in some cases, their best day in history, the NYSE, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, gaining over 400 points at the close, and seeing a 600 point gain from its low of the day. Quite remarkable.

Did those exchanges rally because their participant traders thought the Paulson Plan was a fair, equitable approach to the crisis that allocated risks and rewards in an even-handed manner (assuming there should be any rewards handed-out to the culprits responsible for this mess)? Or did they rally because they saw that the entirety of direct, current benefits were targeted at them? You answer the question. But I'll answer it too.

All of the direct, current benefits go directly to Capital, as represented by Mega- Banking and Wall Street .

That is a fact.

The supporters of the Plan will argue that the Public-in-general will enjoy indirect, time-delayed benefits from the Plan, the most significant being the avoidance of the total collapse of our economic system. This proposition is at least debatable, since no one knows if this Plan will actually work as intended. Remember, the same people who put this Plan together have already pissed away nearly $600 Billion of taxpayer monies on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns and AIG, thinking those actions were going to save the system---they didn't!

The benefits to Mega-Banking and Wall Street are Direct, Timely, Quantifiable and Certain. The benefits to the Public are Indirect, Time-Delayed, Unquantifiable and Uncertain.

So, again, cui bono?

The asymmetry of the benefit distribution must be addressed, even if it means the Dow will drop 400 on Monday.

Obama has done well to utter only sweeping generalizations thus far. He's kept himself from being put into a box--any box--on this profound matter.

I, for one (Obama supporter), trust that he will at all times keep in mind that many of his most prominent economic advisers are themselves products of or currently employed by the very institutions that, under the Paulson Plan, will benefit most by its adoption as is.

[Note: The most comprehensive, cogent and thoughtful commentary I have seen on this question has come from the Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

The Trickle-Down Bailout

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:35:37 EDT

Birth of an American Fuhrer: The Paulson Bailout Act
Absolute Power....

The following is the text of the proposed legislation which I refer to as the Paulson Bailout Act.

I have highlighted some passages.The Act speaks to the powers granted to the Secretary of the Treasury. But it is best understood as granting these powers to the President of the United States, as the Secretary is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President.

The Founders would shit in their pants if they ever saw something like this. It is nothing less than handing dictatorial, new powers to the Executive Branch without regard to the "checks and balances" written into the Constitution.

If this has already been published here, sorry for the duplication.

________________________________________________________

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as __________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Paulson's Plan: The U.S. Treasury as a Trillion Dollar Toxic Waste Dump

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:08:21 EDT

Where to start?

In one fell swoop, after having already committed PUBLIC FUNDS equaling $600 billion to bailout PRIVATE businesses and their bondholders, King Henry (Paulson) and his Crown Prince, Fed Chairman Bernanke, have announced a new, far-reaching, allegedly systemic bailout of PRIVATE businesses with PUBLIC funds that could--and will-total the magic trillion dollar number.

The plan has several key but so far loosely defined components. The Federal Government (meaning us poor slobs) will become the final resting place for the essentially worthless securities--mostly mortgages--that the geniuses on Wall Street found themselves being strangled by. Before these securities became toxic, it would not be overstating the matter to say that their owners made 100's of billions of dollars in profits from trading and/or investing in these things over the past 5 or 6 years. There will be no attempt to re-claim those profits by the U.S. Treasury, of course. The price that will be paid for these pieces of toilet-paper has yet to be determined. Of course, if you don't own any of these bonds/securities, there's NO DIRECT BENEFIT TO YOU.

The Federal Government will also get into the business of guarantying Money Market Funds (MMF) for the first time, perhaps $100 billion worth of them. In postmodern Capitalism, MMFs became a de facto sort of bank to many: risk free places where excess cash could be parked with a minimal payment of interest. Of course, if you don't have any cash in a MMF, there's NO DIRECT BENEFIT TO YOU.

Finally, the Securities and Exchange Commission will henceforth prohibit short selling in the stock of any of the firms on a list of 799 names, including all of the powerhouse PRIVATE financial institutions out there. Unless you own some shares of one or more of those companies, there's NO DIRECT BENEFIT TO YOU.

So we see that there are DIRECT BENEFITS TO THREE CLASSES: (1) Holders of the toxic securities; (2) MMF depositors, and; (3) Holders of shares in the "special" list of 799, whom I'll call 799ers.

In other words, PUBLIC funds will DIRECTLY benefit three select and hardly underprivileged groups.

The PUBLIC, on the other hand, will benefit, we are solemnly told, INDIRECTLY.

The argument being advanced by CAPITAL, and those in its service, like now-King (and formally CEO of Goldman Sachs) Henry Paulson and Fed Boss Bernanke, is that the entire system was in jeopardy of collapsing, an event that would indeed have pernicious consequences for everyone, rich, poor and in the middle. That's the justificatory argument for these actions in a nutshell.

Is it a valid argument? The collapse of the financial system would have unimaginably malign consequences for all inhabitants of modern or near-modern societies. That proposition is beyond debate.

The three questions that are open to debate are: (1) Would the financial system have collapsed without these specific actions? (2) Will these specifics actions prevent the system's collapse? (3) Has there been adequate input into the decision-making process so as to ensure that other approaches were presented and evaluated before the Paulson Plan was adopted?

________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a link to a long, detailed article on the subject of the financial collapse that analizes, from a partisan viewpoint, the causes of the problem:

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10268

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Bailing -Out Billionaires?

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:34:15 EDT

The NYTimes is reporting that a new far-reaching and financially stupendous rescue plan is being advanced by King Henry at the Treasury and Chairman Bernanke at the Fed--two unelected, appointed officials--to address the systemic exposed by the collapse of Capitalism being played out on Wall Street.

The Dynamic Duo, who hitherto had preferred the quite and isolation of boardrooms to hatch their thievery, have deigned to brief members of the Legislative Branch on their scheme, the details of which have not been announced to the public, and might not have been briefed to the legislators either.

The Times reports that the plan centers around the Treasury, the Federal Government purchasing from private organizations securities that are essentially worthless, and doing this with countless hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

No details have been reported regarding any financial sacrifices these bailed-out private entities will be compelled to endure. But it is clear the taxpaying public will, once again, be compelled to foot the bill for the gross miscalculations of individuals whose annual earnings, perhaps whose monthly earnings, surpass the lifetime earnings of the vast majority of United States citizens.

They ask a question in courtrooms: cui bono? Translated: who benefits?

We are going to be deluged with the usual platitudes: "All of society benefits." "We are saving the system." "Every citizen will be better off by what we propose to do."

That should not be enough this time around.

How much is Bill Gross, who runs the Pacific Investment Management Company (Pimco) going to make off this public handout? His firm manages approximately $162 Billion of credit securities (bonds.) Pimco reportedly saw their net asset value increase by almost 2% immediately following the announcement of the Fannie and Freddie bailouts. Two percent of $162 Billion equals $3,240,000,000. Not a bad day's work, huh? [Please do not misinterpret this as an attack upon Mr. Gross; he's one helluva bond guy who enjoys a stellar reputation as a straight-shooter. I do not know him personally, but have followed his commentaries for years, and have no reason to disagree with the straight-shooter rep he has earned.]

But how many Wall Street and hedge fund already-multimillionaires are going to find their pockets swollen by the Paulson-Bernanke Plan?

AT ALL COSTS, THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

Originally Posted on MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

The Postmodern Great Depression, Act II

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:17:51 EDT

Russia, two days ago, closed their stock market in the face of a two-day decline of of approximately 27%. That market has not yet re-opened for trading.

What can be expected next in the United States?

Today's trading on the New York Stock Exchange saw the Dow Jones Index lose 450 points.

Shares of the venerable and sole-surviving independent investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs fell as much as 44%(!!!) and 27%, respectively. Morgan is doomed for sure, Goldman, most likely too.

As the logo's in the post below this one indicate, these two firms have plenty of company.

Does the USG dare halt trading? Do they dare call a "bank holiday," as was done during the other Great Depression in the 1930s? Will such actions only exacerbate the problems?

As of now, there have been no indication of a 1930s-style run on the banks taking place. The public, either because of ignorance or blind faith, has yet to line up at their local bank branch and demand their money. Right now, the first priority of the USG is to prevent such a scenario from developing.

One can surmise that the USG in concert with the Federal reserve System has realized that they cannot be the "lender of last resort" to EVERYONE.

The question now is: Who shall be allowed to fail and how can the consequences of these failures be mitigated, if at all?

Original Posting At: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

King Henry (Paulson) To The Rescue With "Other People's Money"

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:34:42 EDT

Just being announced (unofficially)is another taxpayer bailout: This time giant insurance company AIG.

The report in the NYTimes says the Treasury Department is going to lend AIG--a private company with private investor ownership--$85 billion of taxpayer funds. AIG, in turn, will pledge all of its assets as collateral for this loan. Shareholders will see some dilution, but will not be wiped out.

Once again, this is Government-by-Fiat. All done behind closed doors by men "obligato" to the very industries that created this fiasco. Apparently, Henry Paulson, current SecTreasury and ex-CEO Goldman Sachs, is endowed with powers that allow him to supersede Congress when it comes to allocating taxpayer money.

Yes, it's an emergency; yes, it's a crisis. But do we want to abdicate any semblance of democracy and permit one or two men to distribute public funds as they--and only they!--see fit?

How much money is being made by hedge funds that bought AIG securities betting that Goldman Sachs' King Henry would, once again, come to the rescue with boat-loads of "other people's money?"

And who are the "other people?" They are us!

Originally Posted on: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Modern Capitalism Implodes & Nobody Knows Nothing

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:45:23 EDT

The one apparent fact that is emerging from the Crisis-in-Capitalism now being played out on Wall Street is: Nobody knows nothing.

No one knows the true causes of this calamity andno one knows of any systemic approach to stem the tide of the collapse of the modern financial system.

Right now, and since at least March of this year, we are witnessing the Treasury Secretary and the Fed Chairman playing the roles of Battalion Chiefs as they scurry from one brushfire to the next, dousing them with untold 100's of billions of taxpayer funds, most of which wind up in the pockets of bond holders like the Bank of China, hedge funds who bet the USG would bailout Fannie and Freddie and who therefore accumulated large holdings of the depressed debt securities of those "private sector" firms.

Nobody knows nothing.

When bewilderment reigns, it's generally a good idea to say and, especially, to do as little as is praticably possible. It's not the time to run-off at the mouth; it's not the time to assume nearly $5 trillion of private mortagage debt, as has already been done---with absolutely zero public discussion.

Obama's support should be done in the spirit of "National Unity" in a time of crisis. He should emphasize "crisis." He should emphasize Hoover-Bush-McCain. He should tie his (tepid) support to his sense of patriotism, not enthusiasm. He should make it explicitly clear that he is putting partisan politics on the shelf regarding this matter; but he should implicitly exploit the partisan advantages that this scenario gives the Democrats.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Iraq/Afghanistan: Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:48:28 EDT

The Current Quagmire (Iraq) vs. The Coming Quagmire (Afghanistan)

Select Demographics: Iraq/Afghanistan

Population: 25,000,000/ 31,000,000

Life Expectancy: 69.1 years/ 46.5 years

Religion: Muslim 80% Shia/20% Sunni// Muslim 80% Sunni/20% Shia

Literacy Rate: 84%/ 30%
(Ages 15-24)

Infant Mortality Rate: 49/ 149
(Deaths per 1000 births)

Afghanistan does not provide a suitable environment for the United States to deploy human assets. The environment is suitable for drones---with access to Pakistan.

Afghanistan is so primitive it makes Iraq look like Switzerland.

[Information from various sources. Not independently verified.]

Originally posted on: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Economy? What Economy?

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:48:46 EDT

Even Palin's Pack can understand this as an important issue.

"First of all, let's recognize that this is a once-in-a-half-century, probably once-in-a-century type of event," Greenspan said on ABC's "This Week." "Greenspan" is fomer Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan...Republican to his core.

Obama should NOT be signing on to any more bailouts of zillionaires, as he has already done by acquiesing to the Fannie and Freddie Treasury-robbing.

I've been blogging about this Re-Vamping of Capitalism on my blog since March; it's The Great Depression, Postmodern Style: everything done hastily , in secret, by a select few insiders.

[Next at the feeding trough are the Auto Makers: GM, Ford, Chrysler, palms up, demanding their shares of taxpayer largesse.]

It's time Obama--or Anybody!-- objected.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

New Questions for the Pollsters to Ask

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:39:21 EDT

These are questions whose answers I do not know, but they are perhaps more important, at this juncture of the campaign, than the simple "Who would you vote for?" question.

1. Do you care if a Presidential candidate lies to the public during his campaign?

2. If so, would you change your vote if you knew a candidate has repeatedly lied during his campaign?

The answers would seem obvious. However, the events of the past two weeks of the campaign belie what would seem to be the obvious answers.

As the lies continue to unravel under the scrutiny of the media and the opposition, the spotlight will shift to the voters themselves.

It is by no means inconceivable that the voters will either assume a "truth be damned" attitude and continue their slow, steady drift to support of the McCain Misinformation Machine knowing full well they are supporting a candidate whose primary campaign weapon is The Lie, or they will find comfort in that warm and fuzzy cabin called denial, simply reject the truth when they hear it, and continue on the mindless, self-destructive path being carved for them by the McCain Ministry of Misinformation.

If the Truth and a Lie, irrespective of their specific content, have conflated into moral equivalents:

Obama is doomed.

The electoral process as we have known it since the Founding is doomed.

And whatever freedom we have left in the US is doomed as well.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Gresham's Law

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:52:20 EDT

Gresham's Law has come to be most commonly expressed as "bad money drives out good money."

Has the current Presidential Election become a test case of its validity?

An Awaiting Quagmire: The War in Afghanistan

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:46:36 EDT

It is understandable that the Obama campaign thinks it still necessary to emphasize that their man is an unbridled warrior in the fight against terrorism, at least as anti-terrorist as the opponent, but much smarter about it.

To that end, Barack seems to be wedding himself to a (perhaps misguided) strategy that can be summarized as the War in Afghanistan.

If today's news reports are accurate, Obama has criticized the Bush Administration for not redeploying enough of the departing Iraq troops to Afghanistan; he also made the categorical statement that the major front in the War on Terrorism is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.

Some questions arise from taking that position, the primary one being:

Does a mere change in geography strike at the core deficiencies of the current disastrous strategy that underpins the Bush-Cheney approach to the unquestionably serious problem of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism? The boots on the ground approach still holds sway. The ground somewhat changes, but not much else.

One can argue that, in comparison to Afghanistan, Iraq was a rather culturally advanced nation, notwithstanding its rule by a homicidal maniac, Saddam; Afghanistan, on the other hand, has but a nominal central ruling authority in place, has no infrastructure to speak of, no industry, no discernible educational system, in fact no discernible institutional structure whatsoever. It is essentially a vast swath of undeveloped land, sections of which are ruled by sundry "war lords" and tribal kingpins, most of whom have no allegiance to any centralized government, including the current one.

Into that wilderness we are--again--going to send American troops, presumably to, like an old fashioned Western posse, track down the bad guys and "bring them to justice." Is that the best tactical response we can come up with?

Does the US not possess "technical means" to monitor virtually every square inch of the earth, in great detail? (Google seems to.) Are we not being told that we already know where the enemy is entrenched, namely the Pakistan side of its border with Afghanistan? Do we not have virtually unlimited capacity to wreak hell from the air, using both manned and unmanned delivery systems to bomb at will, with zero risk to US personnel? Do we need to ask soldiers to risk their lives and limbs by wading into villages and camps with their M-16s to put bullets between the eyes Taliban and Al Qaeda members? Is that modern, technical warfare?

Can we target more precisely when we use human beings as the ground delivery system? Yes. Do we need that added precision to disrupt the logistics of Taliban and Al Qaeda forces enough so that not only will they be unable to present a direct threat to us and our allies, they will find it impossible to locate a place where they can get a quiet, safe night's sleep? I hope DOD is building all the drones they can, even if it means one less aircraft carrier in the future.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

The Trap of Buying Into the Prevailing Conventional Wisdom

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:12:06 EDT

Barack Obama has gotten where he is by taking positions contrary to those of the Bush (McCain) Administration. Many of those positions--particularly the Iraq Invasion--were the conventional wisdom when they first were proposed, meaning those positions had bipartisan support; think Hillary and Biden on Iraq, circa 2003. Obama was not then part of the conventional wisdom crowd.

Lately, however, Barack seems to be succumbing to the pressures of joining the prevailing bipartisan conventional wisdom on several issues where robust debate, if not oposition, might be a better course of action. Here are three of those issues:

1. The "surge" was a success, and was the primary cause for the diminution of the violence level in the Iraq Theater;

2. As US troop levels decrease in Iraq, US troop levels should increase in Afghanistan, perhaps on a one-for-one basis; and,

3. The US taxpayer bailout, as structured by the Bush Administration, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the best and only action that could have been taken to avert more damage to the housing market and the overall economy.

This post is not the venue to analyze the three prevailing wisdoms above. The article I posted just below this one addresses point 3. At least one previous blog of mine on this site addresses point 2.

Shrill criticism is not being advocated by me.

But there is no reason Obama could not be saying something like: "The new administration will be examining these, and all, policies and positions of the Bush Administration in detail. Those examinations will determine whether or not changes in course are necessary. Everything will be on the table,..." including those three pieces of conventional wisdom listed above.

VICTORY IN NOVEMBER. THE TRUTH DOES NOT NEED TO BE SPUN.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Fannie & Freddie & SociaIism for Bond Holders

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:36:36 EDT

CEO: Fannie/Freddie Bailout Makes America 'More Communist than China'
Rogers Holdings chief tells CNBC Europe U.S. brand of socialism is meant only for the rich.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
9/8/2008 5:24:06 PM

Has America created its own variety of communism with the U.S. Treasury Department’s bailout of two beleaguered government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE)? According to Rogers Holding CEO Jim Rogers, the answer is yes. “America is more communist than China is right now,” Rogers told CNBC Europe’s “Squawk Box Europe” September 8. “You can at least have a free market in housing and a lot of other things in China. And you can see that this is welfare for the rich. This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters." Rogers, known for launching the Quantum Fund with left-wing heavyweight George Soros, said the bailout was not benefiting homeowners or helping average citizens improve their standing for a home mortgage. “It’s not bailing out the homeowners who are in trouble, by the way,” Rogers said. “It’s not bailing out people who want a mortgage – it’s just bailing out financial institutions. This is not my idea of the way things are supposed to be, but if that’s what America wants, you know, it can elect people who are going to do it. I think it’s a mistake.” The Rogers Holdings CEO had little confidence that Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, Ill., or Republican vice-presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, would be able to do anything to steer Fannie or Freddie on a more stable path. “This is a big huge mess and neither one of them has a clue as to what to do next year,” Rogers said. “Bank stocks around the world are going through the roof, that’s because they’ve all been bailed out. You don’t see the homeowners in Kansas going through the roof because they’re not being bailed out.” Rogers had previously called for Fannie and Freddie to be allowed to go bankrupt. “They should not be bailed out,” he told “Worldwide Exchange” July 15. “This is outrageous. Who are these people who are taking our money and doing this and ruining America?” “Let the patient go bankrupt,” he said. “We have courts in America; they will be reorganized.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “wove a mantle of invincibility” through lobbying according to a September 8 Wall Street Journal “Deal Journal” blog post. According to the Journal’s Heidi N. Moore, the mortgage giants had $170 million in lobbying bills in the past decade and spent $3.5 million on lobbying just in this year’s first quarter, spreading their largesse among 42 outside lobbying firms.

Earlier on September 8, CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer called the bailout “a homerun plan” on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

____________________________________________________________________________

I essentially agree with the thrust of the article: This bailout using taxpayer funds does not directly benefits the average taxpayer. The vast amount of the benefits accrue to the holders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, who are garnering a windfall profit from this action.

DrudgeReport linked to this article.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Post-Palin Campaign Slogans/Themes

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:56:25 EDT

The Obama campaign has wisely decided that Silence is best when it comes to dealing with Palin. There's no need to further legitimize her candidacy by treating her as if she were a serious contender for the Vice Presidency.

Furthermore, it's fairly obvious--at least to this writer--that Palin, her attractiveness and oratorical talent notwithstanding, is on a one-way road to self-destruction, the only question being, when?

The Republicans, led by the Straight Talker, have once again fallen back on their successful strategy that is composed of equal parts lying, sentimentality and confusion. It's worked before (Reagan and GW Bush twice.)

Simple themes for Obama ads and/or slogans:

DON'T LET THEM CONFUSE YOU---BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE HAPPENING EVERYDAY AROUND YOU, NOT WHAT THEY TELL YOU IS HAPPENING (a bit long-winded, yes?)

KEEP YOUR EYES ON REALITY

MORE OF BUSH/MCCAIN? LOOK AROUND.

BELIEVE YOUR LIFE, NOT THE REPUBLICAN/MCCAIN SPIN ON IT

UP IS NOT DOWN, COLD IS NOT HOT, DESPITE WHAT MCCAIN WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE

FOOL ME ONCE. SHAME ON YOU (BUSH 2000)
FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME (BUSH 2004)
FOOL ME THREE TIMES (MCCAIN/BUSH 2008)...NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

WHATS THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA & MCCAIN/BUSH? THEY THINK YOU'RE DUMB, OBAMA DOESN'T

IT'S YOUR CHOICE: BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES OR BELIEVE MCCAIN'S

THE TRUTH DOESN'T NEED TO BE SPUN

I'll stop.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Palin-Pick: Nobody Wins, Nobody.

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:53:16 EDT

1. As an Obama supporter, one could not, in one's wildest dreams, have imagined the Opposition putting forth a VP candidate as preposterous as SP.

2. Her selection, along with the earlier Paris/Britney and Charlton Heston/Moses ads, has reduced the democratic electoral process to nothing more than a farce. "Farce" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary thus: A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used....

3. Though the SP pick makes it more likely that Barack will win the election, it's an episode that results in pure lose, especially to the credibility of our electoral process.

Who Destroyed Palin? The Media or Herself?

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:23:56 EDT

1. There was no particular need for outside sources to deconstruct Palin-as-President. She carries within herself her own destruction, as will become apparent if and when she ever speaks to the press.

2. She has used her gender to her own advantage during her meteoric political rise by assiduously constructing the image of the moose-eating, hockey-playing, gun-toting Super Mom who don't take shit from nobody, while still being a girlie-girl when it fit her need. It was her choice.

3. Although I find it reprehensible that some in the liberal media found it necessary to plaster photos of the daughter and her hapless boyfriend on their homepages, I blame not them (the media), but Palin herself. THIS IS POLITICS 2008, like it or not. Palin should have anticipated the media reaction to some of her "family," issues, and declined McCain's invitation out of concern for her family's privacy. She's only 44, not 72. She's got time.

4. Virtually everything uncovered and reported over the last four days regarding the alien quantity, Sarah Palin, has been true. Hard, raw, brutal, concrete facts. Hard to argue with facts.

5. Is the coverage sexist? That's the most difficult, and subjective, question to answer. Had, for example, a 44-year-old widowed male with 5 children, who had relentlessly thumped the drums of Family Values--as Palin has done-- to get himself elected to similar offices be discovered to have presided over a typical dysfunctional family, we he be subjected to the scorn and ridicule that Palin has had to endure thus far? I think he'd be ripped to shreds.

5a. Finally, Hillary as an example: Hillary never made the foundation of her campaigns the fact that she was a wifey and mommy. She was, but that was incidental in her case. Palin, on the other hand, has emphasized the mommy/wifey-ness angle, she's pandered to the Religious Right on that issue, and espouses grossly anti-feminist views on all the hot button "women's" issues.

The public destruction of Sarah Palin is sad; even more so is the humiliation of the two young people, innocents both.Those two young people are pure victims, but they are not victims of the media---they are victims of Sarah Palin's blind ambition.

Originally posted on http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Is This What McCain Thinks?

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:21:34 EDT

"This election is not about issues," said Davis.--from The Washington Post, Voices

Davis is John McCain's campaign manager.

And the wheels continue to fall off the Straight Talk Express.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Why I Admire Our Candidate

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:43:13 EDT

I, like most everybody else, must rely on media reports for information.

The media quickly published "attack" responses from the Obama campaign against Palin, as if that were necessary.

The media followed up with stories that Barack himself backed away from the criticisms circulated by his Campaign organization. I assume these reports are true.

Barack Obama does not only have to battle Republicans, Hillary lunatics, Chuck Schumers; he, obviously, has his own small-minded Campaign Organization to deal with.

This guy, Barack Obama, is f______g Special. Win or lose this election, Barack Obama is here to stay...Not only is he now post-partisan (which is where I write from), he's becoming trans-partisan.

I am so impressed, so impressed.

Palin Pick, Fourth Thought

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:16:42 EDT

Opined earlier that Palin might not survive as the final Republican VP-nominee.

Am starting to wonder if Sen. McCain himself will actually be the Republican Presidential nominee given the patently suicidal behavior the Palin choice represents.

Palin Pick, Third Thought

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:51:30 EDT

Maybe deep, deep down, John McCain, after seeing what it is like just being the official Candidate of his party, enduring the Secret Service always already there wherever he goes, having a muzzle put on his famously loquacious mouth...maybe John decided he really didn't need to end his life as the Prez, as, in a certain sense, a Prisoner of War again, only in a different cell.

Palin Pick, Second Thought

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:24:14 EDT

This may be a replay of the McGovern/Eagleton fiasco; same result--VP-nominee withdraws--but for different reasons, of course.

Palin Pick, First Thought

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:01:50 EDT

The Obama Community will forever be in debt to the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his wonderful choice as a running mate.

Reading The Speech

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:33:04 EDT

Below are this guy's selection of the highlights of the Candidate's excellent, inspirational acceptance speech, without quotation marks.

"This guy"--me--could weave these snippets into a tapestry that would be a comprehensive, positive advertising assault that even Hillary supporters--the "under-informed" voter--could embrace, and that could have enough magnetism to attract fence-sitters and some who currently lean toward McCain, but nevertheless have an IQ above 93.

I'm too tired and too in love to do that right now.

[I apologize for the arrogance inherent in this post.]

* an economy that honors the dignity of work.

* many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime

* programs alone can’t replace parents

* The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans — Democrats and Republicans — have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

* As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm’s way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

* America, we cannot turn back.

AIN'T THAT AMERICA!---SPRINGSTEIN, cited by "This Guy."

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

VICTORY!

Watching The Speech Without Sound

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:56:14 EDT

1. Since I have complete confidence that Barack Obama's words will be beyond reproach, I am watching the CNN live feed of The Speech with the sound turned off.

2. By doing this, my tiny brain can focus in on the visio-spatial aspects of the event.

3. I do not know who controls/directs the camera shots.

4. Thus far--1935, PDT--I am seeing a brown-skinned man in a black suit, white shirt with red-family tie standing in front of a brown and tannish background, with an occasional, small intrusion of two American flags on the screen.

5. I am not a graphic designer; I am not a set designer; I am not a professional color coordinator.

6. The Candidate has been blessed with stunningly telegenic good looks. Placing him in front of a background (color) where he essentially disappears at worst, or blends into the background at best, is an inexcusable blunder.

7. The Campaign obviously needs to re-staff the section that is charged with creating appropriate backdrops, sets, for Candidate presentation. It is inexcusable in this modern campaign age, particularly given the built-in advantage the Candidate has in his physical appearance vis a vis the Opposition Candidate, that this advantage is not being properly exploited. In fact, I would go as far as saying that this advantage has been negated by the choices made by those responsible in the Obama Campaign. [JFK, in much less sophisticated video-times, fully exploited his visual advantage over Nixon. The advantage Barack enjoys over John McCain in that realm is vastly more than that enjoyed by Kennedy over Nixon.]

8. Even with its flaws, the presentation of the Candidate tonight is likely to be interpreted by the media as successful/positive. The reason for that is that the Candidate is such a formidable visual presence, even sub-par performances by his staff can be transcended.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

VICTORY!

A Minor Stumble, But....

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:23:47 EDT

Just read the NYTimes coverage of the Stadium "issue."

Paints rather poor picture of Campaign staff. Makes them look like a flock of roosting pigeons scattering in all directions when a dog approaches.

I don't know, of course, how accurate the Times reporting is. But it seems the Campaign has not figured out that the Venue--the Stadium itself--is not the potential problem; the potential problem is the stage-set. which at minimum, can be characterized as PRESUMPTUOUS and open to ridicule.

What's done is done. They key now is for the Campaign to actually understand the mistake, and NOT REPEAT IT!

Get some fresh people who understand visio-spatial effects, both the obvious and subliminal ones.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Why Supply Ammo to the Enemy?--Greek Columns and the Average Joe & Joan

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:28:16 EDT

Seen some glimpses of the stage-set for the acceptance speech.

Apparently, so have the Republicans.

I am not happy to say this, but it looks like Obama-Seal redux in the making.

This may be the only opportunity the campaign has to be completely in control of the shot, the visio-spatial image America is going to see of the Candidate as he makes, arguably, the most important stand-alone speech of the campaign.

American Avg Joe's and Jane's don't relate to stark white Greek Columns, and those are the people Barack needs to relate to right now. Anything that Hillary's base of support--the "under-informed" voter--can interpret as exotic or foreign, as not-American, will be seized upon by the Republicans and used against Obama, perhaps successfully.

I would sooner have had him appear in front of a Brick Wall than something as effete as Greek Columns, even if there is a subtle White House quality about them.

If I hear that the Man is going to be dressed in a toga....

Assuming the press reports I have read and seen are accurate, this is a tactical blunder that the Republican fear-mongers will feast on.

The set is set, presumably.

Maybe it will quickly fade into oblivion in the public's mind, like the Seal. I think not, unfortunately. If I were a Republican operative--which I am not!--I'd plaster these coming images all over America.

The Campaign should not be supplying its enemy with ammunition.

Obviously, Barack Obama himself had to sign-off on this decision. I am astonished he did so.

[Note: I am fully cognizant of the fact that something as trivial as the design of the set on which the Candidate accepts the nomination and presents himself to the voters for the first time as the Official Candidate should not be an earth-shaking or game-changing moment. But in this day and age, it sure could be.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

"Don't Know Much" Advertisement

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:20:27 EDT

Good Stuff.

Welds McCain to Bush---the single most important task the O/B campaign must achieve. If they succeed in doing it, Obama wins.

Points out McCain's self-admitted lack of knowledge on economic issues....

And it's all done with the tone of a gentle summer rain.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Polls, Predictions and the Presidential Race

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:43:44 EDT

The Polls.

They have a certain scientificity about them that Op-Ed pieces don't.

Polls are grounded in Statistics, in the formal sense of the word as a subset of Mathematics. You can't argue with Mathematics.

As this is written, the polls, irrespective of the pollster, unanimously declare the presidential election to be a very close one...a virtual tie.

This astounds Republicans, of course, because they know all too well that they should be light-years behind the Democrats, given that their nominee is effectively the incumbent and therefore must defend the record the Republicans have assembled for themselves over the past eight years. That record needs no elucidation here.

The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be interpreting the Polls as an indication that there is something amiss with their candidate, or least with his campaign strategy. They too think they should be light-years ahead, given the brutal and concrete facts that Bush & Co.'s tenure have bestowed upon the Democratic Party.

The poll question that matters most, and that causes all the hand-wringing on one side and jubilation on the other is: Who would you vote for for President of the United States today?

But away from Gallup, Zogby, Pew there are at least two other organizations (which I have blogged about and cited in the past) that are have been engaged in a similar yet different enterprise than the mainstream polling organizations.

These are www.intrade.com (intrade) and the University of Iowa's Prediction Markets (Iowa.)

Intrade and Iowa allow participants to buy and sell, with real money, "futures" contracts on various propositions, including but not limited to the outcome of the presidential race. Over an (statistically) significant period of time, these two market makers have had an uncannily high success rate when it comes to predicting outcomes of political races.

Iowa and Intrade are not asking their clientele, Who would you vote for today? Rather, they ask the question, Who will win the election? I have not heard of any mainstream polling polling organization that asks, or at least reports on, that question.

If one were to visit the websites of Iowa and Intrade (I will supply the url's at the end of this post), one would discover that one both sites the answer to that question is approximately, Obama: 60%, McCain: 40%.

This result is much more in line with what the socio-economic-political conditions of the United States in 2008 would lead an objective observer to surmise regarding the chances of the Democrat vs. the Republican candidate.

Why the disconnect between Intrade/Iowa and the mainstream pollsters?

Are the questions being asked so vastly different? If the pollsters would ask the same question as does Intrade/Iowa, would the results be the same?

There is one difference, at least, that can be pointed out. It doesn't cost anything to answer a Gallup pollster's question. But to "answer" an Intrade/Iowa question, one has to put one's money where one's mouth is and purchase a McCain or Obama "future's' contract.

Which produces the more accurate snapshot of reality?

Intrade: http://www.intrade.com
Iowa: http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres08_Quotes.html

[Originally posted on MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com ]

FABULOUS CHOICE!

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:30:56 EDT

The Candidate picked a Good Man...who happens to have more real Foreign Policy experience than McRove and his entire staff, combined.

"A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations" and now Barack Obama, with Joe Biden watching his back, doesn't have any.

If the Candidate, when elected, chooses his Cabinet like he has chosen his VP, there might actually be a chance to turn this ship (the USA) around.

I haven't felt like this about a presidential election since I was a little kid, and JFK was about Barack's current age.

"A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations."-Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:59:59 EDT

Barack doesn't have many (limitations); with the Biden choice, he's shored-up a couple of them.

[Please read my prior post.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

And Now There Are Two

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:14:26 EDT

[This post assumes Obama does the logical thing--everyone agrees he's good at that--and picks Joe Biden. See my post of August 4.]

Choosing Joe Biden is nothing like choosing Dan Quayle or, for you old timers, Spiro Agnew.

Obama has pulled a heavyweight out of the box of potential running mates. And he chose the right one.

The two tactical advantages Obama gains with Biden at his side are:

1. Barack's Foreign Policy flank is no longer exposed. Biden eats McCain's (and Barack's) lunch when it comes to matters of Foreign and National Security Policy. The guy (Biden) was freakin consulted, but not necessarily listened to, by none other than George W. himself! Biden's expertise cannot be brushed aside by McCain and his Rovian advisers; in fact, I'd go as far as saying that some positive quotes regarding Biden's depth and breath of knowledge in these realms might be out there from people like both Bushes, Cheney, and perhaps Sen. McCain himself. If they are, it's up to Obama's minions to find those quotes.

2. Though extremely intelligent, Biden is not shy about verbally "shooting from the hip." It's quite obvious, and I say this not in any way as a criticism, Barack likes to think before he yaps. It's a good twosome. Joe Biden ain't gonna take any s___t from McRove...and he's going to give more than he takes, if necessary. And by doing so, he allows Obama to continue being Obama, pure and fresh as a pristine forest. Joe Biden is not Clinton/Bush slime; but his lack of the Obama refinement/genteelness, combined with his formidable knowledge, makes him the perfect complement to his boss.

A strategic advantage associated with the Biden choice is:

When he assumes office, President Obama will have at his beck and call a virtual treasure trove of knowledge in his Vice President.

And, finally, I like you, don't know Obama or Biden personally. We know what we read and see and hear in the media; that's all most of us can do. Joe Biden strikes me as the kind of man I sure would like by my side if I were about to embark on the superhuman task of being President of the United States.

The Biden choice is Obama's first presidential-caliber decison test. By buying into Biden, Barack has shown the world he's going to be adept at making the right call.

MyBlog: htpp://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Financial "Bubbles" & Barack's Campaign

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:44:54 EDT

Everyone has heard the term "Bubble" used in reference to various markets.

There was the Tech Bubble of the late 1990s when technology stock prices kept rising at an ever-increasing rate and everyone thought the sky was the limit. The Bubble burst, of course.

Then the housing market embarked on a rocket-ship ride straight up, roughly from 1999 to 2005. Prices doubled, went up 13% in a month sometimes. Everybody was going to be a millionaire. The Bubble burst, of course.

Recently the oil and other commodities had their turn in the Bubble bottle---a barrel was going to go to $200+, maybe more. That Bubble, too, seems to have burst.

It's been found that real, sustainable upward movements in price occur gradually, slowly, over time. And over that time, there are clear price setbacks that occur---periods of Consolidation, the Wall Street types like to call it, where the market pauses and digests its gains, moving back a bit, catching its breath, so to speak, before it begins its steady climb up again.

Barack's campaign is going through one of those Consolidation phases right now. Its catching its breath after a long, solid upward run...it is, thereby, avoiding the trap of being a Bubble.

These consolidations aren't fun in the stock, housing, commodities or any other financial market. It makes the weak-kneed bail out, selling to those who believe the long-term trend is still very positive. That dynamic is called, in Wall Street terms again--aren't those guys great!--a Shakeout. The weak get shaken out by fear that the upward trend is over, and sell to others. The buyers then reap the rewards when the price resumes its steady upward trend.

There's no shortage of Obama supporters on the verge of being Shaken-out right now. No, they are not about to convert to McCain; they merely want their candidate, Barack, to abandon the principles that have gotten him to where he is, and jump on the cynical-sleaze bandwagon of his current and former opponents.

This interlude of Consolidation will make Obama's candidacy all the more formidable when it resumes its relentless march to the White House. Those of his supporters who don't get Shaken-out will have an even stronger candidate to work for. Those that do get Shaken-out will miss out on the "profits" to come.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Pressue Mounts on Barack to Take the Low Road

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:09:35 EDT

For all intents and purposes, the general election campaign is turning into an instant replay of the primary campaign, with merely a nominal--literally--change in Obama's opponent's name.

McCain has slid comfortably into Hillary's old slot and is conducting much the same type of campaign she did once she realized that she was not going to be anointed the Dem candidate by acclamation.

The campaign (henceforth in this essay, "campaign" refers simultaneously to the McCain and Clinton campaigns), the campaign adopts the overall strategy of tearing down one's opponent on a personal, ad hominem, basis.

The tactics used are ridicule, innuendo, outright falsehoods, whispering campaigns, baseless charges, distortions and anything else that can be carved into a weapon of personal destruction.

Those who use these tactics count on the ignorance and prejudice of the voting public to ensure their efficacy. Remember Hillary's success with "under-informed" voters during the primary?

Primary-Obama faced the issue and resisted attempts to roll in the mud with his opponent. He won the Primary.

General-Obama is now faced with the virtually identical issue. Advice, publicly by the likes of Chuck Schumer, for example, and, presumably, privately is streaming in, urging Obama to "fight back, get tough, hit 'em as hard as they're hitting you"...and so on.

The media has found an angle in the election that they can enthusiastically cover because it obviates the hard work that covering real, complex issues entails, thereby increasing the pressure on Barack.

In refusing to play the game by the rules of Bush, Rove, Clinton, Penn and Schumer, as Barack has thus-far done, the single toughest objection to this path of action is this one: But what these other people do Works! These tactics Win elections, like it or not. And, not employing these tactics Loses elections.

As a political outsider, a civilian, if you will, it appears to me that professional political types are in near unanimous agreement that the previous three sentences above are gospel. But they base that conclusion (a) on and only on the results of the last two presidential elections and (b) their interpretation and perhaps creation of the causality relationship between Bush's two victories and the use of personal-destruction politics.

To say that these political professionals have restricted their universe of variables and inputs is an understatement. To these pro's, a candidate is a candidate is a candidate; Kerry=Gore=Obama; just another face and name to plug into their system of winning elections.

If Barack Obama views himself as this latest incarnation of Gore and Kerry, he might as well admit that he's in Rome and "do as the Romans do."

If, however, he thinks he's gotten this far by being something Other than the typical Dem candidate for president, by being a sort of un-candidate, or at least an atypical one, he's got to stick to the high road that brought him to within a step of the White House.

Once he descends down to the Low Road, he has already lost, regardless of the results in November.

myblog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

A Billion Dollars--$$$--Worth of Media Coverage...Free!

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:36:53 EDT

How to get it?

Announce that you (Obama) have chosen your expert-in-foreign-policy running mate while that running mate is visiting the latest global hot-spot, Georgia, at the personal invitation of that nation's President.

Joe Biden, overseas serving his country; Joe Biden, answering the call of an allie's leader for strategic consultation; Joe Biden, the next Vice President of the United States.

Note: Someone might want to tell Joe before the announcement. =)

my blog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Comments on the Warren Forum

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:40:49 EDT

Comments on the Warren Interviews
1. The fact that the interrogator is a religious leader is put in brackets for the purpose of these comment.

2. The content of the responses, i.e., the policy positions of the candidates will not be commented upon by me.

3. Barack's obviously better when scripted, much less so when extemporaneous.

4. The questioning was more thoughtful, more serious, than previous professional media interrogations of the candidates.

5. McCain displayed clearly that questions dealing with abstract concepts, such as "evil," are not his thing. He immediately reified the concept "evil" into bin Laden. In other words, deep thinking is not Johnny Mac's forte.

6. Obama revealed himself clearly as a deep, abstract thinker, for better or worse. His response to the "evil" question, for example, showed he understood that "evil" is an abstract idea, a concept. Warren asked the question from that point of view as well. Obama's answer was 40-times as complex as McCain's; it was also 40-times as edifying.

7. The style of the responses by the two guys was also revealing: Obama pondered; McCain shot from the hip. Obama listened to Walker until Walker completed his question; McCain blurted responses before the question was fully asked.

8. McCain came across as a guy who has made up his mind on EVERY question that may be out there; Obama, as a guy who thinks.

9. Warren and his staff did a helluva job in preparing the questions.

10. This format actually did give the voting public a fairly good venue for assessing the two candidates beyond their positions on the issues.

11. Finally,and I hate to admit this because of the fact that Warren is still--when the dust settles--an evangelical religious leader--the real Winner was Warren and the real Loser was the professional media.

[This was originally posted on MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com ]

Who's Approving These New Campaign Symbols? The Guy Who Designed the Obama-Seal?

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:04:46 EDT

What in the world is that monstrosity above?

After reading a 600-word post on TalkingPointsMemo, I kind of understood its message.

Don't the advertising geniuses running things at Camp Obama understand that signs, visual, essentially non-verbal, symbols should not require 600-word explanations?

Does a Stop sign need explaining? Or a road-curves ahead sign? Signs have to get their message across BOOM! They're not things to be pondered.

This sign presumably made all the sense in the world to its designer and the group of Obama people who already knew what the intent of the sign was.

Either I am as thick as mud, or this sign is at best ambiguous in its meaning, the cardinal flaw in a sign.

Foreign Agents as Presidential Advisers? Huh?

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:08:34 EDT

Generally speaking, when it comes to the election process, aka Democracy, I "the fewer rules, the better"-guy.

Having said that, I am going to suggest a new rule:

RESOLVED; "No individual who is or has ever served as a "Registered Foreign Agent" for any country in the world may hold any office or appointed position in the United States Government, including but not limited to the Executive Branch."

Is it really good for Democracy to have a "former" foreign agent embedded as the top foreign policy adviser to the Republican candidate in his campaign for President of the United States?

Note: I do not know if there are any ex-foreign agents embedded in Obama's entourage. If so, my feelings would be equally as queasy.

Finally, do Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, for examples, employee "registered foreign agents" here in the USA? (I know some have unregistered agents operating, of course.)

[Originally posted on MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com ]

Must-Read, From Washington Post

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:33:53 EDT

Georgia's Recklessness

By Paul J. Saunders

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403053.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Didn't Think It Was Possible, But McCain's Dumber Than Bush [Russia/Georgia Conflict]

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:18:11 EDT

Georgia on My Mind or McCain's Waterloo
John McCain has decided to attach his presidential star to the man in charge of Georgia.

The man who launched the initial attack that started this gratuitous mini-war.

McCain's top foreign policy adviser was, until March of this year, a "registered foreign agent" of the government of Georgia.

Does anyone but me think it might be a good idea to preemptively disqualify ANYONE who has been a "registered foreign agent" of any government from being a foreign policy adviser to a presidential candidate---or am I being Old Fashioned?

Bush has already amply demonstrated his credentials as an outright idiot. It's Johnny's turn now, and he's jumped in head first.

His unqualified and uninformed--except by the foreign agent embedded in his campaign--support for a dangerous foreign leader who demands American blood to protect his prerogatives, is giving the voting public a free preview of what to expect if they vote for McCain.

Georgia will survive this catastrophe; Russia will survive it as well; so too will the USA.

McCain will not. [MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com]

Extremely Controversial Post From My Personal Blog

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:32:57 EDT

Bush Sends US Soldiers Into War Theater With Bulls-eyes on Their Backs to Defend a Lunatic-Lead Regime
When will the United States military stand up and say to this president: "Enough is enough!"?

News that the United States is sending military forces to Georgia to serve as targets for either side in the conflict comes in the wake of the US media falling lock-step into the Russia-hate mode being dictated by the national leadership in Washington.

Nowhere are there questions being asked as to why Shaahashvili, the leader of Georgia, decided to launch the first military attack in this conflict. Nowhere is it asked whether the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the Georgian plan to attack. Nowhere is heard a whisper of doubt as to the wisdom of inserting American forces into a live-fire zone without adequate infrastructure for their protection.

We obviously are dealing with a deranged man in the Georgian leader Shaakavshili. Hearing of the decision to send US "humanitarian" aid in the form of soldiers, the Georgian leader announced that the air and seaports of Georgia would henceforth be under American protection, an assertion immediately and categorically denied by the Pentagon.

What is to stop the Georgian government from staging a "Tonkin Gulf-type" incident wherein American soldiers are killed by Georgians (military or otherwise), the blame quickly laid at the foot of the Russians, and the Administration of Idiots in Washington suddenly finding itself in yet another untenable position---reinforcements to engage the Russians (whose supply line is maybe 100 kilometers, ours 10,000; or turn and run, our military humiliated once again as the direct result of decisions made by the civilian leadership in Washington; or maintain the status quo and watch as American soldiers are picked off, one by one, by Georgian sharp-shooters in an effort to weld us to this lunatic now in charge in Georgia.

It's time for JCS resignations, for perhaps the only sane institution remaining in our country after 8 years of Bush, to stand tall, to dare speak the Truth, to serve their country, not the interests of the armchair generals of the neocon movement. MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Obama 08...Becoming More Important Every Day

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:39:45 EDT

[no text]

Post From My Blog on Russia/Georgia Conflict

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 04:58:19 EDT

Shock and Awe
The Russian counter-attack in Georgia is reminiscent of the initial US attack against Iraq in 2003, but on a much smaller scale of course.

Had the US turned right around after it defeated the then-Government of Iraq and left as swiftly as it entered, the fiasco that resulted from the occupation may have avoided.

The question now, in Georgia, is whether Putin has learned the lessons of the US Iraq occupation and the USSR Afghanistan occupation. Will he accomplish his goals, which he may have already, and make a hasty retreat from the potential quagmire, or will he linger in Georgia and cross the line into a de facto occupation of that country, even for a short time?

If the conclusion of this needless mess follows the path it has so far taken, Putin will pull his ass out of there with the same Shock and Awe speed with which he entered.

A Path to Peace in the Caucasus

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:33:45 EDT

The following is a link to an article in Tuesday's Washington Post.

It's written by Mikhail Gorbachev.

I agree with the general thrust of the article.

Obama has apparently jumped on the bandwagon (as he has also done regarding Afghanistan policy), already inhabited by Bush and McCain, in painting Russia as the sole villain in this needless disaster, even though it was Georgia that launched the surprise attack that began it all.

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081101372.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The article is posted in full on my website: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

McCain Chief Won't Rule Out One-Term Pledge

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:37:42 EDT

That's the headline of an article from Politico.com today.

[Link to Full Article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/McCain_chief_wont_rule_out_oneterm_pledge.html

For McCain to make such a pledge would be political lunacy, of course, because he would be thereby transform himself from the strutting rooster to the waddling, instant lame duck.

In fact, in the article, McCain is quoted as responding to a question in January as to whether he would limit himself to one term, with these words, ’No, because I think then you’re the lame duck, you’re quacking on Inauguration Day."

But merely having a thought like this [one term pledge] kind of free-floating around the political discourse could be troublesome for McCain.

For example, will reporters start asking him whether he has a "secret" plan to resign the Presidency shortly before the end of his first term, elevate his vice president to president, so the latter could run as the incumbent, sitting president? And such speculation brings the "age" question out from under the table as well.

Post From My Personal Blog on Russia/Georgia Conflict and McCain's Possible Conflict of Interest on the Issue

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:24:19 EDT

Russia and Georgia Exchange Missile Fire

The USGovernment, Obama and McCain have commented on the military conflict. For now, Obama and the USGovernment are in sync, both exuding an implicit neutrality.

Not so McCain. He's already taken sides, and his horse in the race is Georgia.

It should be pointed out that McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was until March of 2008 a "registered foreign agent" employed by the government of Georgia.

Below are a quote from a NYTimes article of May 20, 2008 and the link to the full article.

"Mr. Scheunemann was a registered foreign agent until March, when he ended his registrations for several countries. He had joined the McCain campaign several months earlier."

NOTE: I do not know if any of Obama's advisers have been registered agents of foreign governments. If they have, they are potential weak links in the Obama chain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/politics/20mccain.html

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Predictions...In Chart Form

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:19:52 EDT

These charts speak for themselves and are easy to understand.

They all come from the site www.intrade.com

A visit to the site will explain who they are and what they do, and have done over time. My understanding is that actual "bets" are made by site members, much the way one can purchase or sell a stock on the New York Stock Exchange. But check it out for yourself.

[Note: I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH OR CONNECTION TO intrade WHATSOEVER, SO PLEASE DON'T THINK THIS IS SOME SORT OF MONEY-MAKING SPAMMING ON MY PART---IT CATEGORICALLY IS NOT!]

To Edify, Or Not To Edify...That Is The Question

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:33:57 EDT

Barack has to think about while he's on holiday in Hawaii.

Thus far he has--almost alone among all the candidates of both parties--run a campaign whose centerpiece has been discussion of issues, with occasional diversions into trivia spurred by the need to parry the flurry of ad hominem attacks thrown his way by his opponents.

His over-arching theme is Change, with a sub-text of Difference.

To many, his words are magic: beautifully crafted speeches, delivered with intellectual passion, implicitly evincing respect for his audience. His discourse, both in form and content, simultaneously elevates and edifies.

He hasn't dumbed-down his rhetoric, as have his opponents, in some cynical ploy to get the Average Joe's and Jane's to think he's one of them. Rather, he talks to them as if they were one of him: intelligent, concerned citizens capable of understanding issues and making appropriate judgments thereon.

This strategy has brought Obama within one step of the Presidency. It has defeated all comers, including Hillary Rodman Clinton and the formidable and ferocious political machine she inherited from her husband.

As the Contest enters its final phase, Obama is once again confronted by an Adversary hell-bent on transforming the election process into nothing but a pissing contest. The Adversary had no choice but to do this. Otherwise, if he ran an issue-oriented camapign, he, the Adversary, would be in the eternal position of defending the indefensible, namely, the track record of the Bush Adminstration writ large....a losing proposition for anyone.

Barack Obama did not become who he is by grounding his life on jealously, resentment, pettiness and cynicism.

If he decides--which he won't!--to follow his Adversary down the path of ignominity, not only will Obama lose the elction, he will have lost himself.

[This was originally posted on MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com]

J. Edgar Hoover...Where Are You Now that We Need You You or Anthrax, AntiDepresants, Vodka & an FBI With Attention Deficit Disorder

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:31:09 EDT

[The following is a post of mine from MyBlog, http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com]

Who the hell do we have working and running the once-vaunted FBI?

If we are to believe the latest information supplied by the Bureau, the story reads like this:

1. After seven, seven, seven years of intense investigation, the FBI categorically asserts that some scientist by the name of Ivins is the man who committed the anthrax crimes, which resulted in five deaths and other assorted injuries to human beings.

2. We are also told by the Bureau that the guilty man was one of the top scientific consultants/advisers to the Bureau during the course of its investigation.

3. DoJ tells us that Ivins, their man in anthrax, so to speak, was also a psychopathic, drug- and alcohol-abusing individual who was telling his "therapist(s)" that he was going to go out in a "blaze of glory" by shooting to death his colleagues at the workplace. Oh, and, by the way, he also, from time to time during the investigation, was institutionalized/hospitalized for ODing on drugs; and, he also got in the habit of pounding a liter of vodka away every night.

4. He was still an employee in good standing at the USGovernment anthrax/bio-weapons facility when he offed himself.

Is it any wonder that Osama bin Laden roams free, that Iraq is what it is, that the Taliban are re-surging in Afghanistan, when we cannot even figure out who, in an extremely limited universe of possible suspects, is the enemy or one of our consultants?

The new president will inherit a federal government apparatus, in all it multifarious spheres of activity, that has a track record of ineptness unmatched in the history of the Nation.

Prioritizing the house-cleaning will not be easy. But the leadership of the FBI must be dismissed forthwith; at the lower levels, those with any significant connection to the anthrax fiasco should be dismissed as well and the reason for dismissal made unambiguously clear: Gross Incompetence.

I take no joy at all in writing this piece. The Bureau, with its alleged resistance to some of the more viscous tactics expounded by the Bush Admin in its confused War on Terror, seemed to be one of the last federal institutions clinging to competence and principle.

The anthrax case vitiated those hopes for me.

Schumer: 'Hit McCain Harder'

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:27:48 EDT

One need not be an "insider" to surmise that Chuck contributed greatly to Hillary's losing effort to transform the primary campaign into a mud-wrestling match with Obama.

Back then, Obama did not take the bait. Obama defeated the Clinton/Schumer/Bush-Rove school of principle-less, cynical politics that Schumer epitomizes and so many swing-voters loathe.

Once again, Obama must resist the urge to roll around in the McCain/Schumer political pigpen.

The lower the intellectual level the presidential campaign can be brought down to, the more it benefits McCain, just as that type of descent would have benefited good ole Hillary and their supporter, Schumer.

Obama is where he is by (at least) appearing to be fundamentally different from the candidates the country has had to choose from in the recent past.

He has zero chance of winning if suddenly he decides to turn on his heels and try to out-McCain McCain; to out-Schumer Schumer; out-Hillary Hillary.

Link to full article from Politico.com: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12375.html#commentsform

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Big-Dollar Donors Are Major Force in Obama Campaign

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:12:22 EDT

The above is the headline from an article in the 8/5/08 NYTimes...here's the link to the complete article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bundlers.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

No comments from me.

Any comments from the faithful?

Biden's the Only Logical Choice

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:04:42 EDT

There's no need to recapitulate the obvious pluses associated with Biden as the VP-candidate. Only one comment: He obviously shores up the Foreign Policy flank.

The downside I have seen most circulated in the MSM is Biden's tendency to run-on at the mouth at times, perhaps going off "message."

Barack Obama is not going to be elected president because he follows the rules of political consultants who reduce the greatest contest of free speech and democracy in the world to simplistic rules that simplistic people like PR "professionals" and advertising executives follow.

If following the rules were the name of the game, Obama should never have dared run in the first place.

Can Biden possible say anything more ridiculous or harmful than McCain has said?

Can McRove plausibly portray Biden as a lightweight, a novice, a pretty-boy, a celebrity?

Damn, even George W. consulted Biden on Foreign Policy matters, though the president chose to mostly disregard Biden's counsel.

Senator Obama: Please keep your political staff where they belong: in the corral of pedestrian hired hands...and make the decision yourself, like you will be called upon to do as President of the United States in the very near future.

Good Luck.

Defining McCain's Campaign: Communication that Indicates Lack of Respect for Its Recipients

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:05:26 EDT

In my not-so-humble-opinion, the proper counter-attack to McRove's strategy of attempting to demean Obama but actually demeaning McCain, the American public and Democracy itself, is contained in the title of this post, which I will also post on my Blog and perhaps some others.

MyBlog is: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

If you guys think listing my site is spamming, let me know.

Barack: Don't Join McCain and Rove in the Pigpen

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:53:26 EDT

"When you hate your enemies as much as they hate you, in the end, you wind up destroying yourself." --excerpt from Richard Nixon's farewell speech on his last day as President of the United States.

I've read today that the Obama campaign has set up some sort of "site" to respond to the ad hominem attacks that the McCain campaign has been reduced to. Those attacks include but are not limited to the Britney/Paris and "Moses" advertisements.

Obama resisted engaging in a mud wrestling bout with the Clintons during the primary season. He triumphed over them.

Barack Obama is not a pig. Hillary demonstrated that she is during the primaries.

John McCain's campaign organization has accepted the reality that if the campaign were to be run as an issue-oriented one, their candidate had no ammunition, a logical conclusion.

So, for the first time in the Nation's history, a candidate for its highest office has been forced (by the objective foreign and domestic policy failures of his party) to embrace a political strategy that (1) humiliates two apolitical figures of pop culture--Britney and Paris and (2) attempts to equate a man with a Harvard Law School education, a seat as a Senator from Illinois, a triumph in the Democratic Party primary process process against one of the most formidable opponents imaginable--Hillary Rodman Clinton--to two MTV-era celebrities.

It's a strategy that is simultaneously contemptuous of the American public's intelligence and the overall concept of democracy.

By setting up this "site" referred to above, Obama's campaign adds a certain legitimacy to the McRove approach to politics, it valorizes vomit as an acceptable form of political discourse. Is there a way to refute the charges implicit in the Britney/Paris ad? Should that ad require refutation at all? Does refuting it have the paradoxical effect of adding credibility to it? I think it does.

If anything, I think the campaign, and perhaps the Candidate himself, should respond with humor:

"I really don't know what to say about it (the ad;) other than it demeans the electoral process, it demeans two people who have no political allegiances either way that I am aware of, and it demonstrates that John McCain and his organization are running on empty regarding the real issues affecting the American public. As a [politician/public figure], I apologize to these two innocent American citizens who have been callously subjected to mockery by my opponent. But, in the end, he mocks not Brittney Spears nor Paris Hilton with his vile advertisement..he mocks himself. And, quite frankly, I pity him for that"

Senator Obama: Please don't roll in the mud with Rove. Please don't give their garbage wider circulation by responding in a serious manner to it. Resist the (lunatic and dumb) partisans on your side who urge you to hate your opponent as much as he hates you. BE DIFFERENT---YOU ALREADY ARE, JUST BY THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN...AND HEED NIXON'S WORDS AS HE DELIVERED HIS OWN EULOGY.

Good luck, and don't let your advisers and supporters transform you into one of "them."

Re-Write the Slogan at Top of Page, Please

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:07:01 EDT

"I'M ASKING YOU TO BELIEVE. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours."

The above is the slogan we all see at the top of the page when we come on the Obama website.

The Republicans, lacking real issues to debate, are concentrating their focus and resources in ad hominem attacks on Sen. Obama. One of the most prominent tactics is to portray him as arrogant, over-confident in his own abilities, reeking of hubris, presumptuous in even seeking the Presidency.

These attacks are nothing more than pathetic in my view, but they may resonate with critical segments of the voting public nonetheless.

So I will take this opportunity to be somewhat presumptuous myself by suggesting a re-wording of the above slogan, as follows:

"I'm asking you to believe in YOUR ABILITY TO BRING ABOUT REAL CHANGE IN WASHINGTON,...not just in mine."

My version puts the individual voter/citizen in the primary position, and Barack in the secondary one. The current version reverses that hierarchy.

It's a minor point, I know. But anytime the individual voter/citizen gets top billing, the candidate benefits (in my not-so-humble-opinion.)

Britney/Paris Ad & McCain's Lack of Humanity

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:40:27 EDT

Prediction: McCain is Forced to Publicly Apologize to Britney and Paris for His Callous Mockery of the TwoBy Fredrick Bernanke - July 31, 2008, 10:37PM

During his defeat of the Clinton Machine in the primary, Barack Obama proved he could take a punch.

The Britney/Paris ad doesn't even count as a solid left jab in this bout. If anything it looks like one of those wild left hooks opponents like Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier and George Foreman threw at Muhammad Ali in desperate attempts to knock the Champ out with one vicious blow. The problem was Ali merely moved his head back an inch or two, the blow missed by that much and his opponents were often left wide open to counter punches. Barack doesn't even have to move his head for this powder-puff of an attack ad.

The aspect that most troubles me about the ad is the fact that McCain has shown that he is willing to drench two innocent bystanders (Britney and Paris) in his filthy political vomit. Barack's in the ring, he's fair game. The two women whom McCain essentially humiliated are not.

Regardless of what one may think of the twosome, neither of whom has made any political comments that I am aware of, they are human beings, American citizens, apolitical civilians.

The callous vulgarity McCain has displayed by airing this ad, the complete indifference regarding how Paris and Britney--real people!-may feel being used as exemplars of Nothingness, that disregard for these two innocent bystanders (in the political realm) exposes what McCain, his campaign organization leadership and Republicans, in general are.

I loathe frivolous lawsuits, but it sure would be sweet if Brit and Paris could launch a defamation suit against the holier-than-thou McCain campaign.

{Late News: It turns out both Paris' father, Rick, and her grandfather, Barron Hilton, are McCain contributors. Reports are that Barron Hilton personally has contacted the McCain campaign to express his outrage at their use and mockery of his grand-daughter in the ad. This one ain't over.]

We Have No More a Coherent Policy Regarding Afghanistan Than We Did/Do Iraq

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:05:44 EDT

Beware Consensus, Mr. President-Elect.

Rush Limbaugh & Co. vs. the President-Elect

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:43:26 EDT

A new part time job that keeps me on the road for most of the day has allowed me to listen to talk radio more than I have ever done so in the past.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage...they're my new over-the-road companions.

Limbaugh is certainly glib, and churlishly humorous at times. Savage dwarfs the other two in terms of education and knowledge on apolitical subjects, but is the most histrionic and crude of the threesome. Hannity is merely a bore, neither glib nor intelligent, humorless and uncreative in his monologues.

Of course, they all support McCain.

But none of them talks much about old John. Rather, 95% of their political words are focused on Barack.

They reach and reach, search and search, to find some flaw, some stutter in his speech, some miscue in an otherwise brilliant speech or interview---anything, regardless of its obvious triviality, to slam the President-Elect.

There's no need to chronicle the litany of snide remarks, half-truths and poignantly innocuous comments these guys utter.

What interests me is the fact that they literally cannot put together a coherent positive commentary on their nominee, John McCain. He remains, even in this coven of right-wing supporters, invisible, just as he is in the general media.

For the talk radio hosts, it's spring training. They are sharpening their skills in anticipation of Obama's election. They no more believe the polls showing a close race than do most of the public.

The Republicans are about to nominate The Invisible Man as their candidate, while the Dems are about to nominate Superman.

Limbaugh & Co. know that.

Obama as Lecturer at Univ. of Chicago

Fredrick Bernanke — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:41:54 EDT

The following is a link to an article in the NYTimes that I hope some find interesting...I did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Re-Defining the War (on Terror)

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:11:49 EDT

Two presumptuous suggestions:

1. Beware of following the accepted consensus on Afghanistan strategy.

2. Re-name the War on Terror. New name: War on al Qaeda.

The reasoning behind these suggestions are available upon request.

The New Orthodoxy on Afghanistan

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:53:47 EDT

Americans had been led to believe that the Afghan adventure was a success. Now a sudden re-emergence of Taliban/al Qaeda military activity is taking place, resulting in US casualties, possibly signaling a renewed insurgency in that country.

We are told that Taliban and al Qaeda elements have established a sanctuary in the largely ungoverned FATA territory in Pakistan, allowing them to flow troops into Afghan to create general mischief and death.

Obama, McCain and Bush agree more troops are needed and also more military effort by the Pakistan to neutralize the Qaeda/Taliban FATA enclaves.

I am old enough to remember the Viet War, when Nixon accepted the view that the war could not be won unless the US cut off the flow of North Viet men and materiel traveling through Cambodia. That produced widening of the war into the latter country without winning the war.

Is surging more Americans, most of them coming from the Iraq, into Afghan a viable strategy? Is the US occupation of Afghan doing any good in the overall War on Terror?

Is the Afghan culture more primitive than Iraq's, more tribal wars, clan feuds that have gone on for centuries, warlords and drug cartels? Does Afghan society make Iraqi society look like a model of mo enlightenment in comparison.

Can the US succeed in taming Afghanistan where the British and Soviets failed before?

I do not want more US soldiers used again as pawns in mis-begotten stretegies of our civilian leadership.

Thank You, Obama Organization

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:47:19 EDT

I posted the blog below this one on DailyKos.com as well as here and my own blog, ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com.

I was summarily BANNED from DailyKos.com for the post below, presumably for life. DailyKos is a Democratic, progressive website.

I want to thank the powers that be here at barackobama.com for allowing me to post whatever my opinions are, never censoring me, and certainly not BANNING me.

I think complaints have been registered, though I am not sure of that, regarding some of my posts that took on O. But you guys still allow me to express my views...and I sincerely thank you for that.

To have a "progressive" organization BAN someone from expressing political speech was a shock to me, and I hope to you as well.

Again, it was the exact post below that got me BANNED.

Only in America. =)

Fredrick Bernanke

Gore's Energy Proposal: The Apotheosis of Political Arrogance

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:22:21 EDT

Albert Gore, the Nobel Prize winning climatologist---oh wait! he's got zero training in climatology.

Albert Gore, the Nobel Prize winning meteorologist---oh wait, he's got zero training in meteorology.

Albert Gore, the Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist---oh wait, he's got no training in astrophysics either.

Albert Gore, the born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-mouth son of a US Senator has raised the upper limits of audacity and hubris to hitherto unseen heights by calling for a mandated program that would cost the American taxpayers and private investors the tidy sum--even by today's standards--of $1.5 trillion based on a hypothesis he, Mr. Science, believes to be true: Global Warming.

The program would convert the US from a carbon-based fuel economy to a non-carbon-based one, by employing solar, windmill and other non-carbon energy technologies.

The sheer arrogance of a single individual, any individual, proposing a program, any program, that requires the commitment of $1.5 trillion is exceeded only by the financial (and scientific) ignorance that such a proposal evinces.

For instance, what if the price of a barrel of oil were to fall to $80 or $60 or $40 during the life of this program? What then?

For instance, since the prediction even of the next day's weather is such an enormous and complicated mathematical task that the National Weather Service (NWS)_ has the largest collection of Super Computers in the world, more the Pentagon, more than NASA, and the NWS still cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that tomorrow's weather will be so and so; how can a coherent persuasive argument be mustered for such an expenditure based on data whose interpretation may prove erroneous?

And finally, how can a person--Albert Gore, not Albert Einstein--possibly understand any of the physics and mathematics that underlie the prediction of weather and climate changes? I can answer that one for you: He can't. If he were shown the equations, his eyes would glaze over. Without understanding those equations, his guess on the future of climate is no better than yours or mine.

But he relies on "experts," you may say. Yes, that's true. But there is not unanimity on the part of experts, though there may or may not be a general consensus that supports Gore's position.

"A General Consensus" is insufficient grounds to suggest, let alone adopt, a project of this magnitude with taxpayer funds. If the private sector--of which Gore is a part--likes the idea, they are more than welcome to raise the funds and go for it. Otherwise, both Presidential candidates should immediately announce that they have no intention of seizing roughly 12.5% of the nation's GDP based on Senor Gore's beliefs.

The USGovt should never undertake any project of this magnitude, period!

What Would the Great Depression of the 1930s Look Like in Our Modern Economy?

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:19:29 EDT

It's been quite a week for Capitalism.

On Friday, federal regulators seized the assets of Indybanc, making it the second largest bank failure in American history. On Monday morning depositors were reported lining up at Indymac branches in California at 4:30 AM in an effort to get their deposits out.

The federal government insures deposits up to $100,000; beyond that, there is no formal federal insurance. There are people whose deposits at Indybanc exceed $100,000. It's too early to know what will become of their money.

On Sunday, at 6 PM, the Treasury Dept. announces a plan to "bailout" the troubled mortgage institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Part of the plan includes the federal government buying stock in these private companies as well as the Federal Reserve System (Fed) making loans available to them at the same rates that member banks pay for this privilege. The Treasury explained that a collapse of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac would be intolerable for the world financial system.

The USGovt and the Fed have been engaged in a series of putting out brush-fires regarding the world financial system since at least March 2008, when they put together a bailout of the Wall Street investment bank Bear Stearns. That bailout set precedents, as does the current bailout of the two mortgage giants.

The precedents being set all have at there core the intervention of the federal government into sectors that had previously been considered, at least de facto, realms of the private sector.

This dynamic is reminiscent to this writer of the revamping of Capitalism that took place during the period of the Great Depression and WW II during the mid-20th Century. Only this time the folks in charge are trying to conduct a revamp/rescue in the stealth mode, careful not to say things that might worsen the situation, but also offering very little in the way of explaining what is going on and why the System has reached this stage of disrepair.

There are legitimate concerns about fueling bank-runs by uttering the wrong words; for example, Wall St. has been cautioned by the SEC to avoid rumour-mongering, whispers between traders that today could bring down a firm. But is complete silence from the president on these matters the only alternative? Up until today, it has been Treasury Secretary Paulson who has been the lone voice of the administration and certainly the Treasury Dept. sits at the nexus of the private and public financial system. But the time for the president to address this critical situation has arrived.

The heavy lifting in this current re-capitalizing of Capitalism is going to be left to the next president, probably Obama. And, ideology aside, it appears that an expansion of the role of the federal government in our Capitalistic economy is inevitable; in fact, it has already started with the actions taken thus-far by the laissez faire Bush Administration. Only they don't bother to state that fact for public consumption.

They're Still The New York Times

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:07:55 EDT

It's not about your hero, Barack.

But it's the kind of journalism that made the NYTimes, the NYtimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/world/middleeast/13dissident.html?pagewanted=1&hp

"I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself."-Guess Who?

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:19:29 EDT

Below are selected passages and quotes from an interview by Adam Nagourney and Michael Cooper with John McCain in today's New York Times.
_____________________________________________

"He [McCain] said, ruefully, that he had not mastered how to use the Internet and relied on his wife and aides like Mark Salter, a senior adviser, and Brooke Buchanan, his press secretary, to get him online to read newspapers (though he prefers reading those the old-fashioned way) and political Web sites and blogs.

“They go on for me,” he said. “I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need.”

"Asked which blogs he read, he said: “Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously. Everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics.”

“I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail,” Mr. McCain said.

_______________________________________________

Where does one start when commenting on this?

Can one be a functional Senator without knowing how "to get online?"

Would one think that someone desiring, for many years, to be elected President of the US might have heard of the Internet and been curious enough to perhaps check it out once or twice during the past two decades?

Aren't fighter pilots kind of by nature "technical guys?" Don't they have to be ultra-comfortable with technology and the human interface therewith to fly those super-tech machines?

And, once logged on, why does he need others to "show" him Drudge & Co.?

How many other members of Congress don't know how to log onto the Internet; how many don't use e-mail?

What the hell is going on here!?!

Phil Graham Joins The Group of Ex-Surrogates

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:48:14 EDT

Phil Graham Follows Wesley Clark and Jesse Jackson Into Political OblivionBy Fredrick Bernanke - July 10, 2008, 11:21PM

Another example of a surrogate uttering impolitic remarks.

Clark's remarks were at least true, but nonetheless were suicidal.

Jesse Jackson's remark oozed jealousy and hypocricy, coming from a purported religious figure.

Graham's remarks were untrue, arrogant to the extreme, contemptuous of the vast majority of the voting public, ignorant in the extreme regarding the state of the economy, and politically suicidal.

O's best surrogate: Joe Biden (altho I am not sure Joe's accepted that role quite yet.)

McCain's best surrogate: To be determined.

MyBlog: htpp://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

An Absolutely Abhorrent Subject: Lindsey Graham

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:11:57 EDT

This is a post with virtually no content, only a title and a question:

What do the locals back home say about him?

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Jesse Jackson Proves He's a Relic of Another Era

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:01:35 EDT

The Reverend Jackson: When the (Self-) Righteous Fall, the Thud is Like None-otherBy Fredrick Bernanke - July 9, 2008, 8:57PM

Nothing's quite as juicy as catching one of the bible-thumping, right wing evangelists getting caught red ____ed in bed with a female prostitute or perhaps a cute 18-yr-old boy.

It's justice, poetry and hypocrisy all rolled into a tender ball of ridicule.

Now along comes none other than THE REVERAND Jesse Jackson exposing his private (verbal) parts to the public, with comments about the candidate he ostensibly supports, no less.

Is it a sex scandal---the best of all scandals? Nope.

It's merely an exposure of how this "man of God" speaks when he doesn't think he's being recorded. Some were shocked by the Watergate Tapes, hearing Nixon swear like a sailor, but at least Nixon didn't cloak himself in a religious cloth.

Jackson does.

Jackson joins Swaggert and the other religious hypocrites whose names I don't even remember in the exclusive Hall of Shame, God Wing.

And this time he ain't gonna be able to glib-talk his way out.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Balancing Budgets During a Recession

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:31:13 EDT

McCain Marries His Economic and National Security Policies and Produces a Patently Absurd Off-SpringBy Fredrick Bernanke - July 7, 2008, 11:25PM

The utter ignorance evinced in McCain's preposterous proposal to balance the budget in four years, largely by proclaiming victory in the Travesty in Iraq, is making me think that his campaign has been penetrated by Democratic Party operatives who have somehow managed to secure leading positions on his Economic Policy staff.

1. The country is in, or on the precipice of, a severe economic downturn, a recession. During such times even staunchly conservative economists agree that a federal government deficit helps to stimulate the economy. In other words, at this point in the economic cycle, deficit spending is a plus---why did Bush and Congress agree on the tax rebate program? For just that reason.

2. So, deficit reduction at this point in time is a non-issue; in fact, reducing the deficit right now would further slow economic growth.

3. Linking "victory" in Iraq, not withdrawal from Iraq, to a decrease in government spending is the economic equivalent of linking "mission accomplished" to the end of hostilities in Iraq. There was no connection, just as there isn't any connection unless McCain defines, in minute detail, what "victory" means.

I think this is a misguided attempt to intermingle McCain's famous lack of knowledge regarding the economy with his alleged expertise on national security matters in the hope that the latter will obscure the former.

What it actually does is display his ignorance on both subjects.

Following in the Footsteps of Kennedy & Reagan...Why?

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:32:42 EDT

Obama mulling major speech in front of Berlin's Brandenburg gate; to evoke, Reagan, Kennedy. "Ich bin ein Obama"

WASHINGTON--A German friend passed along the news Saturday that local sources in Berlin are confirming that the Obama campaign was in contact with city authorities to discuss the possibility of presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivering an outdoor address in front of the Brandenburg gate. The thinking is Obama would follow in the footsteps of two very famous Cold War-era speeches of U.S. presidents speaking in Germany: JFK "Ich bin ein Berliner" and Reagan "tear down this wall."

From: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/07/obama_germany.html

A very bad and transparently vulgar idea, in this writer's (Fredrick Bernanke) opinion.

When Kennedy and Reagan made their speeches, the Brandenburg gate was arguably the epicenter of the Cold War. It represented the oppression and lack of human freedom practiced by the USSR. Today it doesn't.

If anything, it would give Republicans the opportunity to emphatically point out that it was the aggressive foreign policy of Reagan toward the USSR that indeed brought "down this wall."

If O thinks it necessary to deliver a major foreign policy speech on foreign soil--and I see no need for that during the campaign--other more appropriate venues should be evaluated. Such as? Paris, Prague, Warsaw, Vienna...I don't know his agenda.

O should chart his own course, not follow in the footsteps of others.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Supply Side Economics and the Health/Sickness Care Issue

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:24:30 EDT

[Note: The following post was written on and transmitted to the Obama campaign from this website. It is re-printed here with no alteration except for spelling corrections, which I was unable to make on the other location.]--FB

It's a nasty word in Democratic circles: Supply Side Economics.

But aside from its Reaganesque connotations, its a side of the healthcare equation that needs examination; and if such examination is instituted, one will observe that the supply of physicians has been artificially restricted by the American Medical Association, essentially the lobby for physicians.

Most of the proposals for Universal Health Care have the effect of increasing the Demand side of the equation. But none of the proposals I am familiar with address the Supply side of medical care, particularly the number of physicians practicing medicine.

Below I will excerpt a few paragraphs from an article published in USA Today on March 2, 2005. I will also supply a link to the full article.
"The predictions of a doctor shortage represent an abrupt about-face for the medical profession. For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. In 1994, the Journal of the American Medical Association predicted a surplus of 165,000 doctors by 2000....
"It didn't happen," says Harvard University medical professor David Blumenthal, author of a New England Journal of Medicine article on the doctor supply. "Physicians aren't driving taxis. In fact, we're all gainfully employed, earning good incomes, and new physicians are getting two, three or four job offers."
"The marketplace doesn't determine how many doctors the nation has, as it does for engineers, pilots and other professions. The number of doctors is a political decision, heavily influenced by doctors themselves.

"Congress controls the supply of physicians by how much federal funding it provides for medical residencies — the graduate training required of all doctors. "

Rather than merely increasing the Demand side without any concomitant increase in the Supply side fo medical care (as measured by numbers of physicians), proposals should address both sides of the equation.

Obviously, an increase in the supply of physicians-per-capita is going to mean a decrease in the average income of physicians, not a result the AMA is likely to support.

But since physicians enjoy a monopoly on medical care by the grace of Government, their special interest in limiting the supply of medical care must be subordinated to the overall interest of the Public.

The AMA is a tough opponent to take on. But unless some politician does so, the Nation is doomed to having its resources sucked into the Black Hole of sickness-care forever.

This is the link to the full article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Will They, Can They, Find a New Candidate?

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:25:17 EDT

I ask this in all sincerity.

If I were a Repub big-wig, which I obviously am not, I would be looking for a way to replace the current presumptive nominee with someone else---almost ANYONE else.

Could this scenario become reality?

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

My Reply to a Post by Tom Hayden on Huffingtonpost.com

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 21:16:50 EDT

The quoted paragraph below is from the article.

The link below is the article itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/no-retreat-if-you-want-to_b_110916.html

"It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots."

Perhaps it's that:

1. Obama understands that removing 130,000 troops from an un-pacified Theater of War is not accomplished by waving a magic wand. It requires at least as much planning--maybe more--than the decision to send them there. One--me, for instance--can easily conjure a plausible scenario where we lose as many troops during the withdrawal as we have during the battle and the occupation. And,

2. Obama does not want to repeat the mistakes made by Bush on going in--namely, lack of planning, wishful thinking, unrealistically high expectations--as we go out.

3. With the exception of the political-Gen. Petraeus, one could argue that the military itself will be pleased to call a halt to this Travesty in Iraq, and will supply the necessary tactical information to the new president to best accomplish the goal they both share.

It's really easy to be a kibitzer, like I am and like Tom Hayden is.

To be the President is a much more difficult task, and O is understanding that he's only months away from being The Man.

The Straight-Talk Express Derails

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:52:37 EDT

By Fredrick Bernanke - July 5, 2008, 8:48PM

Here we are barely into the general election campaign and one of the candidates has already imploded.

On a personal, human, level, it's kind of sad, disquieting actually, to watch a man wither away in the most public of venues possible: the glare of full-bore media coverage in a presidential election.

While Obama has had some stumbles himself over the last fortnight or so, they have generally been policy focused, not personal. He's still composed, still intelligent, still in command. Not so, John McCain.

He's no longer the shoot-from-the-hip, swaggering ex-Navy pilot; he's a guy who can't deliver a pre-written speech without stumbling over his words; he's a guy who makes off-the-cuff remarks that tend to indicate he's not quite aware of who's who or what's what in the game he's playing. He comes across on that all important medium of television as a cross between Capt. Queeg and the stoic Capt. of the Titanic. Either way, it's obvious his ship is taking on water.

He's now on his THIRD campaign management team; Barack remains with his original crew virtually intact and adds to it with stars from HRC's professional army, while McCain is forced almost back to square one.

In sports, there are those guys that are unquestioned Superstars in the Minor leagues or College who, when they make it to the Big Leagues, fold like a house of cards.

It would seem that the Republicans are stuck with running one of the all time great Minor Leaguers in the biggest league of them all: the contest for the Presidency of the United States.

One question for those more acquainted with the Rules: Can the Repubs nominate anyone other than McCain at their convention, or are they completely locked in to him?

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Abortion, Obama and the Religious Right

Fredrick Bernanke — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:14:18 EDT

How many O-supporters have ever heard of 'Relevant Magazine?'

That's the mag O granted an interview to.

It's the mag where he enunciated his latest position on abortion. That position is something like, "I don't consider mental distress of the pregnant woman an adequate justification to 3rd semester abortions."

It's part of the so-called reach-out campaign to evangelicals (or as I call it, the religious schtick) of the O election strategy.

I had never heard of this magazine, so I visited its website. From there, under What We Believe, I came away with this gem: "But we do believe. We believe that eternal life and the ONLY true freedom is found in Christ." (emphasis added by me) There are more remarks from the publishers similar in nature to this one on the site.

It's said with a smile by the twenty-somethings that publish the mag.

Does The Candidate believe the same? Do his many supporters here on his site believe the same?

Here's the link to What We Believe from Relevant Mag:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/misc_beliefs.php

MyBlog: http//ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

With the Job, Comes the Gray (Hair)

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:55:54 EDT

The following is a link to an article from Politico.com:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11520.html

Who's the Better CEO, McCain or Obama?

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:45:55 EDT

Obama or McCain: Who's the Better CEO? And Why?By Fredrick Bernanke - July 3, 2008, 8:42PM

Wesley Clark's inept challenge of John McCain's "executive" capabilities by minimizing--some might even say, trivializing--the candidate's military career have cost Clark any chance he had the the O-VP.

But through a fortuitous bit of timing, it may have opened up a space for Team Obama to raise some serious questions regarding McCain's ability to manage a large organization.

The complete top-down reorganization of the McCain campaign is a real issue.

Neither Obama nor McCain have any real "executive" leadership experience. That's a concrete fact that one cannot get around.

Their first tests of running a complex organization has come in the campaign itself, namely, running their own campaign organizations.

How have they done? (Should this be rhetorical question, as the answer is so obvious?)

The most expert and objective critique of O's performance would come from two people who share the same last name and were his adversaries just a short month ago: Hillary and Bill. Barack ran a tight ship and kept its command structure intact during the primary season, and continues to do so today.

McCain? He was forced during the primary season to do a draconian overhaul in his campaign management as his ship was sinking. Now, early in the general election phase, his ship has again begun to take on water. And again, commanding officers are replaced, strategic management structure is fundamentally revised, "outside" help is brought aboard.

If there's going to be a debate about who is the better executive, who is more adept at putting together and leading a winning team, the campaign thus-far has put Obama far in the lead on this issue.

Now, O's PR group has to find a way to exploit this, without a word about the Navy; in other words, it should not be done with blunt instruments like Wes Clark...but it should be done.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Is It Time For a Modified "Rope-a-Dope" Strategy for O?

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:55:27 EDT

For those of you who weren't even born yet and/or are not boxing fans, here's what the Rope-a-Dope strategy was.

George Foreman--yes, that George Foreman--was the 24-yr-old reigning heavyweight champion of the world. He about 6'5", 225 lbs of the meanest strongest most powerful puncher on the planet. Along came 30-something Muhammad Ali: past his prime, still in great shape, but nowhere as intimidating a figure as Foreman.

The two were paired in a Championship fight, with Foreman the heavy favorite. It was simple thought the experts: Ali could not match the awesome power of Foreman's devastating attack.

Early in the fight Ali found himself pinned on the ropes, covering his head with his gloves and his mid-section with his forearms while Foreman threw vicious punch after punch at the sitting suck Ali. But the punches did not land on Ali's chin, they were deflected by his defense and landed on shoulders, arms, sides, gloves. With 30 seconds or so to go in the round, Ali would suddenly spring from the ropes and launch his own attack against an arm-weary Foreman.

This went on for 8 rounds, I think. By the last 30 seconds of round 8, Foreman being completely exhausted by his continuous punching let his hands drop and Ali caught him flush on the chin with a powerful right-cross. The man who had never been knocked off his feet during his entire career, was knocked-out, for the count of 10. Ali regained the Championship against all the odds.

In the current Championship fight, we have one fighter who has a pronounced tendency toward self-inflicted wounds. The more he speaks, the more cuts and bruises he comes away with. As with Foreman, he's his own worst enemy.

I am suggesting O merely lay back on the ropes, mute, absorbing blow after blow from McCain? Certainly not.

I am suggesting that Barack need not match his opponent punch for punch. The Clark Affair is a good example. The wild, undisciplined knock-out punches Clark tried to deliver not only missed the target, but actually resulted in the paradoxical response of sympathy for McCain (the veracity of Clark's comments are immaterial to their results.)

Let McCain rant; let him rave; let him throw those wild hooks from left field like Foreman did. Just don't let him catch O on the chin. And Barack's gotta keep jabbing away, slipping punches, waiting for just the right moment--like Ali--and deliver the knock-out blow to a battle weary, dazed opponent when the moment is right.

And Barack Obama--like Ali--will sense that moment without the need from any political consultant.

[Note: Decades later, the Foreman we all know today was asked his opinion of the Rope-a-Dope strategy used against him. His short reply: "I was the Dope.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Bidding Wes Clark Adieu as VP Choice

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:48:45 EDT

What Was Wes Clark Thinking? or Was Wes Clark Thinking?June 30, 2008, 7:49PM

Wes Clark has demonstrated for all the world to see that he talks like and is, and always will be, a General.

He has simultaneously demonstrated for all the world (esp. Barack) to see that he is not a Politician. Whatever Veep chance he had died when he uttered his gratuitous line about McCain "riding in a plane...."

The use of the word "riding" was in and of itself a mockery of all pilots, not merely McCain.

What qualifies someone to be Prez? The Constitution says the only qualifications are: (1) at least 35 years-of-age, and (2) a natural born citizen. McCain and Obama meet the Constitutional requirements.

A few more comments on Clark's somewhat bizarre attack:

Why, when your own candidate (Obama) has no "executive" experience, attack your opponent's lack of "executive" experience? Why raise that particular issue at all? Any why raise it by denigrating your opponent's military service, generally a plus for any candidate, when your own candidate has zero military service himself?

John McCain has one virtually impenetrable wall he can hide behind, namely, his Navy service. But, upon close examination, one realizes that it is the ONLY impenetrable wall he has.

I thought Generals were taught to discern the enemy's weak points and attack there. Candidate McCain has no shortage of those, but being a fighter pilot is not one of them.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Iraq Back on the Front Pages Soon?

Fredrick Bernanke — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:17:09 EDT

Is Mosul Ready to Erupt?By Fredrick Bernanke - June 28, 2008, 4:52PM

"Sources based in Iraq are suggesting the recent Maliki offensive against the city of Mosul, population 2.5 million and perhaps the last of the al-Qaeda strongholds in the country, has not been able to maintain the gains they made during the battle. "--from ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

The above is a post from MyBlog, written by me.

If indeed the city of Mosul explodes into large-scale fighting, the MSM will be forced to covers the events, even if it means shipping a reporter or two back to Iraq.

Putting Iraq back on the front pages and TV screens redounds to the benefit of only one candidate: The Big O.

The Big O Performs Again in the Clutch

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:08:20 EDT

Below is taken from an article on Breitbart.com, via TheDrudgeReport.com]

'US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama played a word association game when interviewed on Fox Business channel on Thursday, responding in a rapid-fire manner to words thrown at him.

Obama used the game to express respect for his Republican rival, John McCain, and underline his stances on some issues.

"I'm going to give you a couple of words," the Fox TV journalist said. "And then you just tell me what you're thinking about."

"I will do my best," Obama answered.

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement): "Mixed bag."

Wall Street: "Money."

Sovereign Wealth Funds: "Caution."

Iran: "Threat."

Exxon Mobil: "Profitable," said Obama, laughing.

OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries): "One word, for OPEC I would say it is independence. The association I have there is we've got to free ourselves from dependence on OPEC.

Senator McCain: "Honorable." '

In this writer's opinion, that's as good as it gets. Grace and Intelligence under fire. [With thanks to the Oakland Raiders.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Democrats and the Dow Jones Industrial Average: Is There a Correlation?

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:16:05 EDT

With one trading day left to go, the stock market, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), is set to have its worst June since 1930! The Great Depression era.

Today alone, the DJIA lost over 3% of its value, bring June's loss to just under 10%. In 1930 the June loss was over 17%.

If that's not enough excitement for you, consider these other financial events of the day:

Oil hits $140/barrel for the first time.

And Goldman Sachs, the most influential and financial solid firm on The Street, issues a few pronouncements. They recommended the sale of shares of General Motors, sending that stock to its lowest price in 50 years; they recommended not only the sale of Citigroup shares, but went further and recommended selling those shares SHORT!

Why is this happening? The market "analysts" have rounded up the usual suspects to blame, including my namesake at the Fed, consumer retrenchment, runaway oil prices, possible runaway inflation and on and on.

Why post this here at TPM?

Because the Democrats should be able to win the election even if they decide to nominate the San Diego Chicken (in full costume) and run him instead of Obama.

The House of Cards came tumbling down in foreign affairs a long time ago; now we're witnessing the Homeland House of Cards doing the same.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

Fredrick Bernanke — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:06:12 EDT

"Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

Full story at: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html?desc=topstory

I support the Senator's position wholeheartedly.

Bravo, big guy.

A Post From My Personal Blog

Fredrick Bernanke — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:59:12 EDT

Cafe Obama No Longer Just a Kibitzer, He's One Step From the Presidency & His Latest Positions Shows ItBy Fredrick Bernanke - June 25, 2008, 9:53PM

Are most people familiar with the meaning of the world "kibitzer?"

I know it as a Yiddish word that essentially means: a person who gives unwanted, usually uninformed advice to someone who is involved in performing some task; the kibitzer has no responsibility regarding the task being performed, successfully or unsuccessfully. (My definition.)

Example: A plumber fixing a broken pipe at someone's home is harangued by the homeowner at every step of the repair: "Maybe you should use a socket-wrench for that, ..." says the homeowner.

Many Obama fans are becoming disenchanted with some of his latest utterances, particularly his position on FISA.

IMHO, what we are seeing is the transition from Obama-as-kibitzer to Obama-as-likely-President of the United States.

Senators are kibitzers, a great job. Even primary candidates are kibitzers because they bear no real responsibility for anything they say.

But Barack is no longer either of the above. He is now one step away from being president, and he very much understands what that means. Hence, his positions will take the awesome responsibility of the Office he seeks much more into account. And no responsibility is more awesome than protecting the life and limbs of the citizens he governs.

All of us bloggers here (and elsewhere), all of the talking head commentators are kibitzers, same with the columnists. We say what we want, regardless of the consequences our opinions may produce because we bear no responsibility for those consequences.
Obama now does, as does McCain (and anyone actually holding the Office of the President.)

As he--Barack--gets closer to the White House, don't be surprised if his positions on national security began to drift toward the Right, away from the idealistic and simplistic policies advocated by the Left.

Will he become a Bush/McCain clone? No. But will he send signals to enemies of the United States (and they are out there) that he's no naive capitulater when it comes to the national security of the Nation he seeks to lead.

It's going to mean some disappointments to the Left and probably to libertarian Democrats as well. Be prepared, there's more along these lines coming from your candidate.

Farewell to the Seal

Fredrick Bernanke — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:24:28 EDT

Good choice.

More on Oil Speculators-From The Tehran Times, June 23

Fredrick Bernanke — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:55:37 EDT

Saudi king lambastes 'speculators' at oil price summit

JEDDAH (AFP) -- Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah launched an offensive against oil “speculators” on Sunday at a summit on the soaring price of crude which exposed OPEC divisions over the need to increase production.
The king announced that Saudi output has risen to 9.7 million barrels a day, the highest figure since 1981, in a bid to defuse market tensions that have forced the price of a barrel up to almost 140 dollars.

The monarch, who said his country would give 1.5 billion dollars to efforts to ease energy shortages in poor countries, told the 36-nation summit Saudi Arabia was “very concerned” about consumers everywhere.

He blamed increased oil consumption and taxes on fuel, but added: “Among other factors behind this unjust increase in oil prices is the abhorrent act of speculators seeking to undermine the market.”

The summit has seen an international debate over the cause of the doubling of oil prices in the past year.

The United States and other Western powers have blamed production shortfalls while Saudi Arabia and other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members said “speculators” have played a key role.

OPEC was split, however, over whether to follow the Saudi lead in increasing output.

Kuwait said it was ready to increase production, but the OPEC president -- Algeria's Oil Minister Chakib Khelil -- insisted this was not necessary.

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said before the summit that “there is no evidence that we can find that speculators are driving futures prices” to current record heights.

He told the meeting: “Market fundamentals show us that production has not kept pace with growing demand for oil, resulting in increasing -- and increasingly volatile -- prices.”

Warning that prices would almost certainly rise further, Bodman said: “In the absence of any additional crude supply, for every one percent increase in demand we would expect a 20 percent increase in price in order to balance the market.”

German Economy Minister Michael Glos welcomed the summit, but added: “The oil markets now need a strong signal from the production side.”

An increase in production would be “a strongly needed signal to the financial markets to not gamble any more on an increasing oil price,” he told the summit.

India's Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and Australia's Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson also called for oil-producing nations to increase their output, diplomats said.

Kuwaiti Oil Minister Mohammed al-Olaim said that OPEC members “will not hesitate” to increase production if the market needs it.

But OPEC chief Khelil insisted there is enough oil to supply the market.

“We believe that the market is in equilibrium. The price is disconnected from fundamentals. It is not a problem of supply,” he told a briefing.

“Why would you have a supply problem when demand is going down?” he asked.

Khelil said the 13-nation OPEC would only consider a production increase at a regular meeting in September.

“We believe speculation, in its noble and not noble terms, has its impact,” the OPEC chief said.

Khelil said much of the price explosion can be explained by currency market turbulence. “A lot of people are talking about the uncertainties about the reserves. But what about the uncertainties on the dollar?”

A Saudi source said there is scope for other countries to follow his country's production increase as there are up to three million barrels of spare capacity within OPEC nations.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the senior western leader at the summit, called for a “new deal” between consumers and producers.

But like many Europeans at the meeting he said production shortages and speculation had to be studied.

Brown said that the world was going through “the biggest of all three oil shocks” in recent decades.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said, however, that the world has enough crude to last “many decades” and that Riyadh will invest massively to be able to produce 15 million barrels a day.

Nuaimi said Saudi Arabia's production capacity will rise to 12.5 million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of 2009 and another 2.5 million bpd could be added if demand warranted.